I totally agree that Dumbledore (the most powerful and knowledgeable wizard of the age) could’ve trained Harry himself from the very beginning without having to reveal the larger plan, instead of Harry barely surviving each event with the most dangerous dark wizard of all time.
@@nunyabisniz8047 The fact that it says that over and over again is weird, you can raise a child to be prepared for the lingering dangers in his future and have him not turn into a child soldier. Once again, Joanne's logic makes no sense.
My personal gripe with him is the house cup points stunt at the end of the first book/movie. While I agree that Harry Ron Hermione and Neville genuinely earned the points awarded to them they should have been given before the feast so the Slytherins don’t go in with false hope and have their win ripped out from under them. Very petty and hardly his worst deed but it’s bothered me since I was 12.
Don't forget with Dumbledore giving Harry and his friends might have giving drago a new reason to hate him as sometimes a teacher might get a student angry or fed up with theme for picking favourites
I mean were the Slytherins any better? It's not like they weren't favoured by Snape who took many points from gryffindor unfairly, in front of the Slytherins mind you.
My dumbass college decided to do a house system(not based on hogwarts) and it was a running joke that the president(who was a retard pretending to be an intellectual) was going to give a shit ton of points to his favorite house at the end. Didn’t happen but I would have gotten a laugh out of it
@@tehdarknight1520 That is different from the headmaster carefully calculating how many points Gryffindor needs to win and then negating the academic work of three houses simply because he wanted Gryffindor to win by giving INSANE points for basically rulebreaking.
"He was young, he didn't know what he was doing." Harry is, in some ways, a better example of this. He was magical, but raised in a household of muggles. When he would use magic (before being enrolled in Hogwarts, mind you), he truly didn't know what was causing these bizzarre, abnormal things to happen. Dumbledore, however, knew about his magical heratige, and was likely aware enough as a child to attempt to "blend in" a bit so that no muggles would "get wise" to the fact that Albus and his family are somewhat more than strange.
THANK YOU for pointing out that Dumbledore FORCES Harry to live with people who literally NEGLECT him & mistreat him (although you technically forgot to mention that Mrs. Figg IS there to "check up on" Harry, although she literally does NOTHING to stop the abuse & neglect, either, expect maybe report it back to Dumbledore who also does NOTHING for YEARS, so . . . ) & for saying that Dumbledore's NOT pure of heart!! He IS NOT!!! It SHOULD have been Newt OR Jacob!! NOT Dumbledore!! THAT'S the biggest thing that bothered me about the last Fanatisic Beasts movie!! 😒😣 So THANK YOU!! 😊
Speaking of Snape, Dumbledore did seem to et the Marauders get away with a lot. Even when Sirius nearly gets Snape killed and Lupin more traumatized than he already was, all Sirius got was dentention with Snape being tolld to keep his mouth shut. Though, in defense of Dumbeldore, I get the feeling that, deep down, he regretted how cold he was with Tom. On the one hand, how can you love someone who lacks the abilitity to love? Yet, on the other, a little warmth could've gone a long way. So, out of his regret, he alllowed his wards/surrogate children to get away with bullying and mischief (i.e. Filch (?), Snape, the Marauders, maybe Draco, etc. In other words, Dumbledore may've overcompensated...
I'd like to submit that dropping Harry on the Dursley's doorstep with a letter wasn't just negligent, it showed a profound disdain for the Dursleys themselves. They had been a basically happy family before. Yes, Dudley was being spoiled, but Petunia and Vernon loved him and each other. Minerva may have judged them "the worst sort of Muggles" (a phrase which itself reeks of anti-Muggle bigotry), but they weren't evil or even bad. I even have a headcanon that Dumbledore cast spells on Petunia and Vernon to make them mistreat Harry. After all, if he didn't want Harry "spoiled" by living in a Wizarding World that revered him as the Boy Who Lived, it wouldn't want him spoiled by being raised by overly-indulgent parents, either. Also, it was crucial to Dumbledore's plans that Harry was willing to die to protect Hogwarts. For this reason, he wanted Harry to view Hogwarts as his real home. If Harry was happy at the Dursleys, he might not be so uncritically enamored with the Wizarding World. He might even realize that he was being manipulated. Remember, Dumbledore was getting regular reports from Arabella Figg, so he knew exactly how Harry was being treated by his relatives. If he was willing to condone such abuse, you have to conclude that the manipulative mastermind would be willing to engineer such abuse as well.
@@abdirahmanidris290 More like hundreds (maybe thousands) of lives, the death eaters could do little against mordern muggle armies and the population of Wizarding Britain isn't very high. Besides, Dumbuldore didn't knew about Voldemort extra lives and probably though just like the rest of the wizardin world that he was dead for good, so his manipulation came more as plan to get Harry away from the muggle world rather than a desire of stoping the supposedly dead Voldemort.
@@brandojoansaldanarivas6143 Actually, he always says Voldemort will return and Harry will be in great danger. He says it in Snapes memories right after Lily and James are killed
@@abdirahmanidris290 Oh, that's true, my mistake. Still irksome how he seems to have manipulated Harry's upbringing. Besides how he did knew about Voldemort return but didn't seemed to do something to discover how Tom was still alive and where he was hidding. Otherwise Quirrel might not have to be possesed when he search for the dark lord alone for example. He might have even pressed Slughorne to tell him about the horrocruxes using Felix Felicis just like Harry did (or using it to discover the horrocruxes in other way), the potion might be complicated he had around 14 years and a lot of influence and conections to do so.
I just thought of another group you didn't address though. He was okay with allowing Sirius Black to rot in Azkaban, knowing full well that he was innocent, and having the power through his connections etc to do something about his plight and he never did. That to me is absolutely disgusting.
When Dumbledore casts the Fidelius charm, Sirius is the secret keeper, then Sirius, Lily and James later change it in secret to Peter, so Dumbledore wasn’t initially aware. Then again, he should definitely have figured it out, getting memories from Sirius in jail like he did with other prisoners or something
what power? we didnt know what power the supreme mugwump has. It was clear Dumbledore didnt have enough political clout, he didnt even control the hogwarts school board, what power???
Another example of him leaving kids in abusive households: Sirius and Regulus. I find it extremely hard to believe that no one realized how shitty their home life was. Even Molly Weasley, whose main personality trait is being a good mother to both her children and Harry, has sent a few Howlers in her time. If fucking MOLLY WEASLEY isn't above publicly telling her kids off like that, Walburga Black sure as hell wasn't. I sincerely doubt that when Sirius pissed his parents off, they made it easy for him to hide that. Dumbledore should have been well aware of Sirius's shitty home life and DONE something about it long before he had to run away himself. And even if he somehow didn't know before that point, he DEFINITELY would have known that one of his students was now under entirely different guardianship, and he should have asked why and realized that he should now be keeping an eye on REGULUS, who was still. fucking. there.
Dumbledore is just a school-headmaster and his political influences were limited, the Blacks were one of the most powerful pure-blood family, he couldn’t just take their children from them. And also the Wizarding World doesn’t seem to have child services
This is perhaps the most absurd criticism I’ve seen in a comment section littered with falsehoods. Regulus was well liked by his parents and Sirius was able to rebel in his own ways. Just because they had extreme political beliefs doesn’t mean that they were abusive or should have their kids taken. This type of attitude is for losers. Furthermore, how would anybody know that he came from a bad household when Sirius was happy and had so much confidence? He got to be at Hogwarts for like 9 months out of the year and there’s no evidence that he or his brother were abused. It’s okay to disagree with people and not try to take their kids.
I knew something was up with him the moment he said he had a scar in his knee that's an accurate map of the entire London Underground in the opening chapters of the series, and that's why he thinks Harry's scar could be useful. How and why does one get such a distinctive scar, and why SPECIFICALLY the subway trolley system?? And the fact that this NEVER became useful information later on. I waited my entire childhood reading those books as they released just to see if that particular tidbit would work for the plot, like, maybe he has knowledge of how to avoid Voldemort because gosh golly gee, why would You Know Who ever be on a Muggle train at some point, but nope, we never hear of it again and Dumbledore's been spouting nonsense since the beginning. I bet he didn't even actually see himself holding socks in the Mirror of Erised. I bet he was lying about that too.
Like many authors Rowling has characters say strange-ass things that eventually lead to nothing. About the Mirror of Erised he chose to not answer a very personal question with something very funny , which is rather armless more like a joke then a lie
These types of old men annoy the most. Even just Dumbledore offering up lemon drops in a way which suggests he's not taking the situation as seriously as he perhaps ought to tells me all I need to know about Dumbledore: the man lacks much empathy, remorse and care and he's willing to use and manipulate people as his own soldiers, make them do things that would only make them worse off and use their weaknesses against them having already failed them previously. He didn't just fail Harry or Voldemort, he failed all of Slytherin since he'd become a teacher at Hogwarts, allowing the interhouse rivalry and segregation of groups of people based on their beliefs and values to continue breeding some of the most toxic and harmful qualities and ways of thinking and acting known to humanity. And by failing Slytherin he also failed all other houses. As one of the eldest and most revered wizards at Hogwarts, he should've had the power and know-how, and most importantly *care* to not go risking other people willy-nilly, not even "strategically". This man, at best, belongs to purgatory, not heaven.
You’re going to complain about lemon drops? They were just trying to represent his eccentric side from the start. A lot of these criticisms simply aren’t fair.
8:01 This is the point I can give Dumbledore one break. At the time of Voldemort's years at Hogwarts, Dumbledore wasn't in charge. The Headmaster at the time was easily fooled by Riddle's charm and Hagrid's record for getting in trouble. Remember in book 2 Dumbledore guessed most of what had happened, as his not "who" but "how".
Yes but Dumbledore had plenty of opportunities to reach out to this troubled boy and he didn't. Even the little scene at the orphanage. He should have insisted on accompanying riddle to Diagon alley. He could have done so much more to reach out to him. I agree, perhaps the damage had already been done as he had grown up in an institution. But, Dumbledore didn't even try to help. He was happy to just send him on his way. Seriously, this guy should never be put in charge of children.
I agree with what is said here but I believe the true behind all of this is that Rawling wasn't taking to much time thinking when she was writing and did it all superficially. No big theories or secrets behind HP books. Of course I could be wrong.
There’s a lot of things I can’t forgive about Dumbledore, but to be fair, it makes sense for him to hide the fact that Harry is actually a horcrux until the right moment. Confess at the wrong time and there’s a better chance of Voldemort winning.
While you're right, he could have done literally anything to prepare harry short of actually telling him. Harry had two spells he mainly used. Dumbledore was one of if not thr strongest wizard of all time.
Everything happens for the sake of the plot. At least Kushina asked Sarutobi to look after Narurto (which he didn't by the way) who gave the right to dumbles to dictate Harrys life?
Dumbledore is no Dark Lord or saint, but in his goodness and soft power he's much more manipulative and terrifying than Voldemort could ever hope to be. This due to the fact that Dumbledore is capable of loving others, and thus understands far more deeply what makes people tick. And Dumbledore has also (some) humility that Voldemort will never possess, causing D to second-guess himself quite often. Just think how both Dumbledore and Voldemort understood Snape, and how this understanding contributed for the Voldie's eventual end. Voldemort had really no chance against manipulator of Dumbledore's calibre.
What Bumblemore deserved, frankly, was Robert Baratheon. “In my dreams, I kill him every night. A thousand deaths will still be less than he deserves.”
I love this video. All the gripes you have with Dumbledore are exactly the same gripes I have. But there is a bright side. Plenty of your own amusing and imaginings of how other… Perhaps more minor characters… Could respond to Dumbledore was awful miss, and perhaps even how they manage to "clean up" afterwards. But yes, he was definitely not the "pure hearted", and epitome of everything good that rolling wants us to believe.
I agree. I've been having fun for quite some time now about how Filius Flitwick would respond to Dumbledore. OK, he's part goblin so therefore could be considered at least partly an outcast. Dumbledore could have tried to manipulate Flitwick into his inner circle, playing on his goblin ancestry and the prejudice towards him. Let's see how that goes. Well we know that Filius Flitwick was not a member of the Order. He was a staff member but not close to Dumbledore, and I would argue not even someone Dumbledore could even count on. But I would say that Filius was a complex character but I would say a lot more "pure of heart" than Albus. And even the dueling... he could have gone into that because he felt he had to prove himself... even to himself. Then he realised eventually that glory through dueling was not what it was cracked up to be. He then left all that behind and went into teaching. Perhaps he was someone who really wanted to help people. Perhaps the lack of pastoral care for students... and staff alike... at Hogwarts really bothered him as well. I'd say he is too complex a character for a mediocre author like JK Rowling to write. But anyway moving on... I'd say that Flitwick was most likely a wake-up to Dumbledore. He may have had his reasons for staying at Hogwarts, but let's say that he is disgruntled with how badly Hogwarts is run under Dumbledore. Maybe he is disgusted with Snape's blatant abuse of his authority over students and the fact that Dumbledore and Minirva, who is part of his inner circle, turn a blind eye to it. Perhaps Flitwick is uncomfortable with Dumbledore's treatment of Harry, and has suspicions that Harry is in fact being abused, but can't confirm them. Maybe Flitwick is uncomfortable with Dumbledore's power games, especially with Hagrid and Lupin. There could be a hole laundry list of grievances Flitwick could have with Dumbledore. But what if Flitwick is not the only staff member uncomfortable with Dumbledore's antics? What if there is a whole faction of Hogwarts faculty that agree with Flitwick? And what if this causes interpersonal conflict between staff members? For example, Minirva and Filius among others. Perhaps the fact that Flitwick refuses to be a yes man to Dumbledore is a thorn in Dumbledore's side. Flitwick refuses to give Dumbledore any ground so he "owes" Dumbledore nothing. Whatever the situation, perhaps Flitwick is less secretive, more approachable, more human and less arrogant and power hungry than Dumbledore. People see this... a disgruntled little man that smells a rat and isn't afraid to say things that others may be thinking. Someone who humbly calls a spade a spade. And to those disgruntled by both Dumbledore and the ministry/Voldy, that looks attractive... like they're "buddies in arms" or something. I think people like Flitwick, if what I'm describing is possible, would fight alongside people like the DA and OoP but not necessarily because they support Dumbledore, or believe that the institution of Hogwarts is a hill worth dying on. They would fight for things like loved ones, those who can't fight for themselves, and because a moral compass tells them that what they are doing is right. But they don't look to Dumbledore, the minister for magic or Voldy as their leader. IDK just spit balling. I think if anyone of the Hogwarts staff was a wake-up to Dumbledore it would be Flitwick. Being part goblin he may have been targeted by Dumbledore for manipulation in the past. Who knows? The possibilities are endless. But I think looking at a complex character like Flitwick and how he responds to Dumbledore would be fascinating. Flitwick is a good, kind person. But he's also not stupid. I think it would be a lot harder for Dumbledore to pull the wool over his eyes than it was to pull the wool over the eyes of the likes of Hagrid or Lupin, or even Snape. I actually think Flitwick would intensely dislike Snape. Oh and I forgot to mention... Flitwick would be a good person to help with the "clean-up" after Dumbledore's death... of the carnage Dumbledore caused.
The goal was to keep the murderous beast that Lupin turned into every full moon away from the people he would have hurt without hesitation. Lupin agreed to such measures so that he could get an education any other headmaster would have denied him because of his condition. So yes
@@jakobmzrdu7932still he knew Lupin was a danger and endangered student specifically snape who was almost killed as a child in the process . Lupin shoulda been expelled because even as a human he was a violent bully
No he wasn’t. He never partook in the bullying of Sirius and James, instead he’s guilty of not impeding when he was named prefect due to his great fear of losing his friends
And about the Snape thing, Lupin had no say in the matter Sirius tricked Snape into going to the shack where Lupin was at the time transformed (and wolf-bane potion hadn’t been invented yet, so in every full moon Lupin would be dangerous)
He put Lupin in a position he knew was cursed, knowing that Lupin would have virtually no chance of finding employment after the curse was enacted. Surely he could have spared one of the other professors into that position and Lupin take that professor's position that wasn't cursed. At least the sacrificial professor would be able to find a job once out of Hogwarts. Did Dumbledore really care for Lupin? Nope. Lupin was just a chess piece like everyone else including Harry.
To me fair on chamber of scerects part it was clear Dumbledore wanted to think Tom riddle could be helped and redeemed and didn't want to think tom would ruin his chance of getting the help he needed or be doing these awful things as it like being a Parent as you want to think your kid not evil without seeing the early warnings
Albus Dumbledore is a light lord, exactly the same as a dark lord. The difference is he uses light magic instead of dark magic which makes him seem more benevolent and not evil. The problem with this is that the opposite is true. Because the evilness of his actions is hidden through manipulation and deception. Tom Riddle learnt to be like that from Albus Dumbledore when he was in school. However AD was the only one who TMR could not hide his true nature from. And eventually when TMR became LV he was being more open about his nature and desires. Just as his death eaters wore robes and masks to hide their identity, TMR used LV to hide his true identity. However AD did more damage to wizarding society than either Grindelwald or Voldemort did. I have had others disagree with me about this of course, but I stand by my belief. We are told that AD turned down the minister for magic position because he was afraid of what he would do with that kind of power. I do not believe this is the real reason. As he already held 3 powerful full time positions at the same time (headmaster of hogwarts, chief warlock of the wizengamot, supreme mugwump of the international confederation of wizards), thus giving him more power over the entire wizarding world than he would ever have as prime minister of magical Britain. And to take up the post of prime minister, he would have to leave all of the other positions, thus decreasing his power. Wizards lack of common sense meant that no one stood up to say this isn't right. And because of this wizarding society suffered, as AD couldn't give his full attention to just one position. The same can also be said of Minerva McGonagall, as she also had 3 full time positions (Deputy Headmistress, Head of Gryffindor and Transfiguration Professor). AD pushed most of his work as headmaster onto MM so he could deal with his other positions. As a result of this MM was not able to do her job as Deputy Headmistress properly, nor was she available to be a dedicated head of house to the Gryffindor students.
Ditto absolutely everything you have said. I would say that the cleanup is still probably going on cleaning up the mess as Dumbledore left… It is probably still going on 25… 26 years after his death. Not to mention the cleanup bill and the cost. I would certainly like to think that there are people who are dedicated to catching up so many traumatic and psychological wounds in so many people because of this man. Sometimes, I can't help wondering if characters like Filius Flitwick, do you know naturally kind people, who don't stick the limelight and don't want to power, would probably actually shine and come into their own as part of some sort of loosely organised, Motley, "cleanup crew".
@@milanka882 yes you are probably right. Although when it comes to Filius Flitwick he had his flaws too. What I mean is that, Luna Lovegood was a member of his house and yet she was the victim of bullying by the other Ravenclaw students. He as head of Ravenclaw house should have put a stop to it, but he didn't.
@@katmaresparkles9578 yes, he had his flaws too. He's human like the rest of us. In fact I've been exploring Filius Flitwick's character in depth in stories I'm writing. He's my fave character from the books to write about. So in my writings, I've explored this in depth. I think someone like Filius is, in terms, actually behind the 8ball when it comes to the Hogwarts staff. Let me explain. 1. I sat down and worked out just how many teaching hours there would be at Hogwarts per core subject, just for first five years. I worked out that the workload for teaching alone is enough for 2 teachers per core subject. And that's just for teaching hours per core subject for the first five years. I didn't get to adding the teaching hours for sixth and seventh years. 2. Normally at boarding schools, they are: - single sex - not having teenagers of both genders with raging hormones locked up together with a 70-1 staff/student ratio. Recipe for disaster. - usually have student support staff outside of the faculty to supervise/support the students outside of teaching hours eg house master/mistress etc. The duties that the heads of house at Hogwarts are expected to perform on top of their teaching responsibilities would normally be performed by aforementioned support staff. Well at least that was how boarding schools were run by the '90's anyway. Under Dumbledore Hogwarts would have no doubt been stuck back in the 19th century. Add to that, due to the wizarding wars, coupled with a general disregard for basic child welfare in the wizarding world... particularly by the likes of Dumbledore, the amount of dysfunctional students generally would no doubt have been higher than in the 19th century. So, you have a teacher doing the work of 2 teachers. He is also expected to be head of Ravinclaw house, thus assuming full parental responsibility over roughly 70 students at any given time. Not to mention the toxic work environment when under toxic headmasters like Dumbledore and toxic teachers such as Snape added into the mix of dysfunctional students. One man in an entirely dysfunctional system trying his best to make a difference. I've been in work environments like that myself, so trust me, I have sympathy for Filius, don't worry. See the problem? Whenever I read about Filius Flitwick, I see a deeply caring, compassionate and kind person... genuinely so, not like Dumbledore who gives the impression of those qualities in order to manipulate people. It's obvious how deeply he cares for "his Ravinclaws". I would say he was "Luna" in his own school days... meaning being bullied, in his case for being part goblin. I would hazard a guess that he actually does care about what happens to kids like Luna... and probably even Harry. He's part goblin, he's probably been there. I would say it deeply troubles him. But he's not super human... he's only human. And under the workload Dumbledore places on his staff, and the toxic work environment Dumbledore expects them to work in, I'd say Filius would do his best... but clearly his best is not enough. It's possible that he may know that as well. If Hogwarts had better student support and employed more than one teacher per core subject, people like Filius Flitwick would be much more able to give kids like Luna Lovegood the support they need. Hogwarts is dysfunctional, a toxic both learning and working environment, and the blame for that has to lie squarely at the feet of Albus Dumbledore. So, I do take your point regarding Filius. But that's what makes him such an interesting character to write about. How he relates to and responds to this load of toxicity he finds himself in. And how he comes out the other end. I would say he would most likely end up burning out after the Battle of Hogwarts, and possibly even taking a sabbatical for a while afterwards. I would love to see Hogwarts cleaned up, proper support staff employed and more teachers per core subject. I actually could imagine Filius Flitwick in more of a support or guidance role myself. I think he'd be happier. And I think he'd learn to live with himself as well.
@@katmaresparkles9578 oh I should also add to my above novel now that I've had a good night's sleep. :) I can't help wondering... Hogwarts clearly has a bullying culture and a high tolerance for bullying. If bully is so rife within the student body, and if teachers like Snape are getting away with bullying students with impunity, than it stands to reason that bullying most likely goes on among the faculty as well. I mean, we see this with McGonigall bullying Trelorny (please excuse spelling, I'm blind and I've only ever read the audio books), and of course Snape bullying Lupin. I wouldn't mind betting that old Snape hasn't had a go at Flitwick as well as Hagrid... I'd say both of them have no doubt been bullied at the hands of other faculty in their time. They'd just handle it differently. Then of course Umbridge comes along and just merely takes what was already there up another notch. Dumbledore already plays his staff off against each other, expects things of his staff without giving them full explanations while at the same time expecting his staff to "trust him", and looks the other way at bullying generally. No wonder why Umbridge got a foothold, and no wonder why the faculty didn't mount a serious united opposition against her until the end. What she was doing was pretty much business as usual within the Hogwarts working environment, just on steroids. What I'm trying to explain to you is that Hogwarts was a workplace as much as it was a school. And the boss, in this case Dumbledore, had a duty of care towards his staff as well as his students. Yet Dumbledore and duty of care clearly don't go in the same sentence. He used Hogwarts in order to gain power and to both recruit and play pieces on his chess board. He didn't care about the staff any more than the students. In this toxic environment, it's not surprising that staff like Filius Flitwick could not do the job of watching out for kids like Luna as well as necessary, or even as well as they'd like to. Dumbledore's lack of care for his employees would trickle... or in this case gush... down to the students, and the staff's ability to take care of them. Meaning that kids like Luna Lovegood fall through the cracks, as do teachers like Filius Flitwick. I first read the books in my 20's, because that's how old I was when they came out. So I see the situation as it was for both the students... as a special needs student that I once was when I was at school roughly in the same time period that Harry was at school... and also from the point of view of the faculty and the sort of workplace Hogwarts would have been for them. I've been in toxic workplaces exactly like Hogwarts, and had bosses exactly like Dumbledore, and this is what makes me warm so much to Filius so much. I had some nasty... Snape/McGonigall... type special needs teachers in my time. I would have given my eye teeth to have had Filius Flitwick as a special needs teacher... on a tie with Remus Lupin. So that's where I'm coming from. Of course it's also possible that JK Rowling is a bad righter and can't write these nuanced characters or situations properly because she doesn't have the skill beyond brilliant wordsmithing.
@@milanka882 I was also in my 20s when I read the books. I also would have been at Hogwarts during the time period the books are set in. And because of my house sorting, I would have been in Ravenclaw, with Flitwick as my head of house.
I always found it a little strange that people expected Dumbledore who was at the time just a Tranfiguration teacher at Hogwarts to be the one to fight against Grindelwald. At that time only Aberforth and Bathilda knew they were friendly so the fact that literally thousands of people were able to connect them in this way was more than a little weird. Yes, he was powerful, but it’s like the equivalent of asking Minerva Mcgonagall to lead the charge against Voldemort, even Harry points out in book 6 that many of the teachers who worked at Hogwarts were not involved in the OOTP or the war until Hogwarts was threatened. Even stranger still is that Dumbledore was in fact organizing an army of sorts at the time and it really puts Fudge’s suspicions in perspective about Dumbledore trying to turn students into soldiers because isn’t that exactly what happened to Harry?
Dumbledore was trying to turn children into soldiers. He succeeded as well. I would say fudge was right about that as well. He just went about front of it in the wrong way. I would hazard a guess that Dumbledore turning children into soldiers probably made a lot of the faculty very uncomfortable.
⚠️spoiler warning⚠️ Sure, let’s say Petunia was protecting Harry with some magical blood pact. Here’s my problem. HARRY WAS ALREADY PROTECTED WITH HIS MOTHER’S SACRIFICE. He would have been even safer at Hogwarts, where he could be even stronger. That’s something Dumbledore KNEW. It doesn’t take a genius to look at Harry’s letter and see ‘under the stairs’. I wouldn’t be surprised if he purposefully hid that from McGonagall because she does not seem like the kind of person to let that slide. Then he suddenly dies and leaves Harry with absolutely no idea what to do. Don’t tell me he couldn’t have just told Harry the plan, because he COULD HAVE.
The “magical blood pact of Petunia” was Harry’s mother’s sacrifice as long as Harry lived with the blood- relative of his mother the magic would remain strong.
I mean, iirc in the books it was said that whem Dumbledore's sister gpt killed *they didn't know which one of them hit her.* So all three of them were throwing around curses bad enough to kill someone. Even if it wasn't Albus who hit her it doesn't make it any better regardless of whether he started it or whether Grindelwald was fighting or not
This was an interesting video, even if I don't particularly agree with you. You were right in saying that Dumbledore was a pretty shitty person in his youth, and that his experience with muggles doesn't excuse his bigotry towards them. However, by the time he dies he clearly no longer holds those views. This I think is a positive message. This is to say that people should try to find redemption and learn to be better than they used to be. I don't think Dumbledore was by any means perfect, but I don't think he was necessarily a terrible person either. Also, the points you mentioned regarding Voldemort are probably just plot-holes, but I may be wrong.
To me the hafe blood prince is where i think Dumbledore or the school staff should of got drago into a counselling talk to see how he was giving the fact what happen with his father and over the films was a approval seeker shows drago is a tragic character in the harry potter fandom as it like looking at chloe in ladybug who like drago is a approval seeker and does things to feel notice
I have LITERALLY read so many Manipulative/Dark Dumbledore fanfiction that it is my favorite genre.. Holy moly.. It is probably the only Harry Potter thing (outside of the games) I still like. I read so many absolutely amazing manipulative Dumbles stories. The best of which was one relating to Vampires of all things. Dumbledore was legitimately evil in this and did many bad things.
There is a lot in both the films and books that could be more fleshed out. Dumbledore is definitely more nuanced than he is credited for. Voldemort has valid reasons for his descent to evil, but it is approached in a corny over the top manner. Harry absolutely should have easily fell to Voldemort's influence given not just by his connection but Harry's upbringing. I don't know about you, but being raised by an aunt and uncle like that I most likely would resent those who left me there and take revenge on those responsible the second I learn of my powers and celebrity status. Also, Harry could not hide anything from Voldemort. There is absolutely no way Voldemort would have not been two steps ahead of the trio at all times. The set up Rowling lays out leads perfectly to Harry becoming the next dark lord.
It’s odd I’m typically one of the people that agree that Dumbledore could of done a lot more. But I guess I’ve also created my own head logic that explains he’s a flawed man. But your video makes me kinda just dislike the writing and what jk is doing. 😢
i do see what you're saying, or trying to see, but i know people are gonna be upset, we live in an optimists culture, and this is mostly negative. i do think the more time passes, the more we realize J.K. Rowling wasn't exactly that great a writer, i love the Wizarding World as a concept, and many of the characters, but i see it has flaws
Yeah, but rather childish and fake optimism. Real optimism would include that even the worst people can change. Within the Harry Potter fandom, it's rather childish denial and living in "perfect favourite characters" bubbles.
If the Potters were thought to be safe under the Fidelius charm, why could the Weasleys not be under the Fidelius Charm, with one of them as Secret Keeper ? Dumbledore made an utter pig's ear of looking after Harry. Dumbles is utterly unscrupulous, extremely manipulative. He is arguably a greater villain than Voldy.
That is admittedly a plot-hike from Rowling in how the Fidelius Charm works: first she makes it like people that live under a Fidelius can’t be their own Secret Keeper to then retcon that in DH
Lol, I didn't want to believe that Dumbledore was a villain but after I watched FB3 I realized that he was the real villain. Everything bad that happened was because of him. All Tom Riddle wanted is to be loved and accepted. He was just seeking attention. He thought that Dumbledore loved him but he didn't. This is why love protecting spells defeated him. And Grindelwald was just heartbroken. Dumbledore broke his heart. In all movies Dumbledore manipulates everyone to help him lessen the consequences of the heartbreaks and evil he created.
Oh please breaking someone’s heart doesn’t make you at fault for them becoming a wizard nazi, nor does not loving a student. Could he have done better sure but blaming Grindelwald and Voldemorts own decisions on him is a massive stretch.
@Sanglap ghosh I always found that bit of info exceedingly dumb. With love potions being so readily available that you can buy them in normal shops in diagon alley, it is very hard to imagine that kids being conceived under them isn't a regular occurence. Tom Riddle wasn't conceived with love. Okay. But more importantly, he never was shown any love or affection as a kid (aside from Professor Slughorn maybe).
Okay, I think many of these could be kind of defended. To me the fact that he didnt entrust whole secret of deadly hollows and horcrux information to Harry because he wanted him to posses them safely and do things the right way is just a peak of god complex. Im sorry. I understand that he didnt want to tell him about Snape, and his suicide strategy, because Harry might be too emotional to let it happen. But regarding the deadly hollows and horcruxes, Harry proved time and time again that he is very selfless and doesnt seek power. Why not just telling him, instead of leaving these obscure clues like he is an enigma decipher. Oh and also telling him how to destroy horcruxes would be nice too, since he definitelly knew at least one way. He literally prepared his own death. Which means right before that he could entrust Harry everything he needed to know.
To be honest, this is one of the least factual videos I’ve ever seen. We all know why Dumbledore didn’t fight Grindelwald initially because it’s explicitly explained in the 7th book. We also know why he was left with the Dursleys each year if we have critical thinking skills. Most of these criticisms are completely unfair. Dumbledore is not responsible for Snape’s behavior and Snape actually helped look after Harry in his own way. I don’t think Snape redeemed himself, but he played a very important role. I’d be shocked if you’ve ever read the books all the way through. So many outright lies and half truths.
From what my dad told me is that Harry’s family help hide him away with their muggle aura or whatever from what the books imply? which I mean would make sense but like would the villains really sit there and fall for that for years? I mean for the first two books and most of his child years yeah but not for the rest of book 3 and onward 😑 like shouldn’t he be with strong wizards who can protect him or something! It made no sense to keep him going back to those people.
Before this Dumbledore Grindelwald friendship + rubbish, I always tfound people were far too hard on Dumbledore. They expected him to be god, to solve all problems, to be super human. But he did his best and many constantly tossed stones at him even when he was the only one anyone knew of standing against Voldemort with the first order. Then the Grindelwald thing. Before Rowling's shocking' plot twist about DD's friendship with GG we just knew Dumbledore stepped in to stop him. He's already in law, so that's logical. No connection between the 2 was even hinted at. When reading a good mystery you can re-read it later and see clues. That's what makes it a mystery. Mrs. Rowling, however, just flying by the seat of her literal pants just makes it up as she goes and this shows. She decides to have DD and GG being all whatever and really this ruins DD's character rather than making him human. I won't accept it, though, as it makes no sense. I feel the original author can still go ooc, not canon and it isn't right and this she did it. Sorry I won't ever see that as actual, cause it really doesn't fit either man's personality to stand the other for more than 5 minutes simply because they have a few things in common sorta kinda. Bella L
6:47 he did, he told harry how he tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time being wary of the sociopath who took pleasure in torturing others and who felt no affection towards any other human being!
Albus is horrible but the thing with awful ideologies are that people get trapped in them often because they are hurt or afraid so not talking again to someone who in the age of 15-17 thought of awful things will not help the world because awful people will have more grip onto this person if other people ostrasise them just for their teenage bad beliefs and that's not just my view but Bertolt Brecht's
Not to mention he knowingly gave a pedagogical position to :a guy whom he knew to be a : dark agent ( with V. In his body) /a crook with no magical talent & insufferable character, a potentially dangerous warewoolf. He also unknowingly gave it to a dark agent disguised as his personal, long term friend (which makes him look stupid as well).
I think the wizards should realize 2 things: 1) Wizards are just muggles with a longer lifespan and flashy sticks 2) We can destroy the entire Wizarding World in .2 seconds with a press of a button (Nukes. I mean nukes) I think we'll be fine 🙃😁
I will say that as far as the films go, I like Dumbledore in the first couple movies with the original actor. I started liking him less and less with every movie after the first two though. By the time I get to Half-Blood Prince I wasn't super sad that Dumbledore died, which is strange because his death was built up to be so emotional and impactful, and yet I felt more emotions when a character like Sirius, or heck, even DOBBY died compared to Dumbledore
I think that an issue with JK Rowlings writing style is that she tries to throw some sort of twist or event in characters backstories to make them more morally grey than initially depicted but because of how she handles it, it gets botched. Dumbledore and Snape are good examples. Snape is a horrible antagonistic bully but because it turns out he loved harry's mother, the story views him as some sort of tragic figure that the fandom eats up for some reason. Then there's Dumbledore himself. He's depicted as this "BIG GOOD" throughout the series, we're told he's amazing and 90% of what he does and how he acts supports this, but I think there was probably enough within the first couple of books to analyse and question some of Dumbledores decisions to make him more morally grey. Yes he had to leave harry with the Dursleys to keep that protection from Voldermort and his followers, since Harry staying there keeps him safe due to to Lilly's sacrifice being strengthened by their blood ties. They are his only living relatives. Physically, Harry is safest, but emotionally and mentally, he'll be broken by them and honestly it's amazing he's as well adjusted as he is when he gets to Hogwarts. Yet... maybe you can argue that leaving Harry anywhere else puts him in much more danger from some of Voldermorts more dangerous supporters, or Voldermort himself. Also, avoiding Harry in the fifth book is also justified, since it's much more than Voldermort reading his mind. If I recall, there's a moment in the books where Harry sees Dumbledore and gets an overwhelming urge to attack and kill him. Basically, Voldermort is using their connection to try and control him, and Dumbledore clearly doesn't know how to deal with it. As good as Dumbledore is, he doesn't know everything. He isn't able to break Voldermorts curse on the DADA job and he eventually gets fatally wounded by the curse on the ring, so Dumbledore clearly didn't always have the answers, or the ability to correct everything Voldermort was doing. I consider this one of those times. A lot of the magic Voldermort employed was HIGHLY unusual and advanced, even for someone like Dumbledore to deal with. So yeah, not perfect but I think given some hand waving, we can mostly see him as he's depicted in those first 6 books as the wise and mostly good leader. The problem I think, truly comes in book 7 with his backstory with Grindlewald. It's like I said, she threw a twist in there to make him more morally grey, but in doing so, it destroys his character because it makes him out to be a blood supremacist. He was obviously willing to commit murder, enslavement, and other war crimes. Honestly, I think in this case, Rowling went way too far and it permanently impacted how we see him as a character. I think she did the same thing with James - we see in a memory that James was willing to do something that some people interpret as sexual assault. Because this is the only first hand evidence we see of James as a person, it paints him as a pretty horrific individual. All the second hand evidence of 'Oh actually he was a great person, trust us" just doesn't hold water to that. Again, Rowling went too far. I think she had the right idea, but the way she executed those ideas left things open enough for us to look at some of the characters and see them better - or worse - than intended to a point where it's jarring.
7:00 his mother and father weren't related, which according to one guy I watched, causes a genetic reset. Also it's worth remembering that rowling believes that no one is born evil.
to be fair on the chamber of scrects part i feel Dumbledore wanted to think Tom was a good kid deep down and thought someone else might of been behind the opening of the chamber well not admitting Tom was to far gone to be helped and saw Harry as the one good thing that came out of the mess much like a parent see their one good kid as the one good thing that came out of a mess
So to summarise your main points as to why dumbledore was such a terrible person: 1. he had adopted a dangerous ideology briefly when he was a teenager. 2. He put off facing Grindelwald (which was explained in deathly hallows because he didn't want to face the truth of who killed his sister) 3. He didn't do enough to stop young tom riddle (when I'm pretty sure the idea was that riddle was hard to catch in the act and that the rest of the staff trusted him) oh, and he didn't realise that Riddle's ring was one of the deathly hallows. Which took close examination for Dumbledore to realise.
@@bismuthezoid adoptive parents who? You can probably interpret the law the same as muggle, oprhan child will go to the closest family relative. Either it's petunia or Malfoy. Since Harry paternal side has Black line.
@@Anonomius0 Just because there was a reason behind it does not mean its right. Besides, even if its immoral, surley they could have used some sort of magic to make the Dursley's believe Harry and Dudley were twins or something, make them love both equally, and when Harry turned out to be a wizard it would be explained by Petunia also having the gene for magic even if never was activated like it was in Lily
And this folks is why you actually plan the whole story out before you start writing, instead of just putting whatever pops into your head on the page without checking to see if your cool ideas are going to have implications you dont want
Yeah Dumbledore could've put the love protection onto someone's house instead of letting him get abused and neglected all because "they're the only family he has" .
This is not a defense of Dumbledore I just want to point out one or two things, I would also like to point out that the pact states he can’t stop grindelwald didn’t say anything about not being able to stop faceless minion #437 there are work arounds, the goblet of fire has a binding magical contract which forces you to compete idk if it means in the tasks specifically or you can’t drop out it’s not clear, I don’t think he ever went to Azkaban to get memories if you can point out where it is specifically stated he did so I’ll agree on that point, as for the extended family’s I think they’d Dursleys were the only ones left and McConigall was only there for one day as stated in the 1st book so yes she is not the best source of info and ms figg and others were watching to protect him but I don’t see why they didn’t tell him about the abuse and he step in like he kinda did in the 6th book,
thank you. I am so glad that I'm not crazy for thinking this. I always thought the guy was a bit off when I watched the movies, but it amplified when I finally read the books years ago (I thought the that this guy was an arse at best. and I still think that). But the only people I can find who also think that are the Tom riddle x Harry Potter shippers, so I thought I was going crazy.
It's funny how Rowling was convinced she was writing a deep series full of complex characters when the series's morality is black and white "Harry and friends good, anyone else bad." And Snape and Dumbledore were the only characters she tried to make more complicated which backfired and left Snape as a whiny incel whose answer to being bullied and friendzoned was to join a racist cult, asked Voldemort to kill James and Harry so he could have Lily, only started helping Dumbledore try to kill Voldemort after Voldemort killed her too not out of remorse for his crimes as a Death Eater. Then he used a teaching job to bully a kid because the kid's dad bullied him and the kid's mother didn't want to date him. And Dumbledore came off as a manipulative old man who never actually let go of his and Grindelwald's "for the greater good" excuse, put Harry with the Dursleys and had the sick belief that the only way he could grow up humble was being abused and I'm convinced that he did it purely to make himself and Hogwarts seem better in comparison. Then he pretended to care about Harry just to get him to sacrifice himself to destroy the Horcrux.
I think his biggest flaw by now is being a goddamn coward. He saw what he can do when he's in full power and arrogant about it, so instead of learning to trust his own redemption and use his strength for good on a large scale, he hides away as a school teacher and never takes any chances. Orphan parseltongue kid looks suspicious? Why, what better method of making sure he doesn't turn bad but sitting in the sidelines and watching him with slinted eyes in silence. Take a tiny risk to make sure an orphaned kid doesn't stay with his abusive relatives? What are you, crazy? If he was actually selfish and malicious he could've groomed Harry into a perfect little soldier the moment he found out about the prophecy, not left anything up to chances. Instead, he took care of as many horcruxes as possible and generally tried to help and alleviate pressure from Harry's shoulders as much as possible, while still shying away from the spotlight. He's just a dude with insane power who started out wrong, got scared of his own mislead ambitions, and refused to use his power to its full extent for the rest of his life. A coward who needed to deal with his trauma, essentially.
7:10 ok, now I'm confused. First you accuse Dumbledore of being too harsh on young voldie, now you're accusing him of being too lenient? Pick a lane! 7:16 sigh, no, no, no, no. It is worth remembering that no one knew that the monster was a basilisk, all they knew that the monster could only be controlled by the heir of Slytherin. And, ok in hindsight, it should have been obvious it was a basilisk, but despite being well known as a parselmouth, they only put it together that it was a basilisk due to other clues in chamber of secrets. 7:55 I'm pretty sure he did, as harry told riddle I bet Dumbledore saw right through you, but remember, Dumbledore was not headmaster at this time, and it's not like there's been no other time that authority figures hadn't listened to Dumbledore.
Dumbledore is not evil. He's a plot device. And he should have stayed a plot device, rather than Rowling trying her best to make his behavior coherent and motivated. Dumbledore was just weird and quirky before Rowling tried to give him a convoluted and frankly stupid backstory. Personally, I'd rather dismiss everything that came after the Half-Blood Prince and keep Dumbledore's motivations as an enigma, because clearly Rowling fucked up badly after that. I know she tried to make him a deeply troubled and morally grey character, but clearly she didn't have the writing chops to do so. So, personally, I'd just forget everything that Rowling tried to do with the character, rather than pretend she had some great vision in mind all along (as she has pretended a million times before).
I'd like to point out that all of Voldemort's follower's get matching tattoos that seem impossible to conceal. They could have just asked Sirius to roll up his sleeves in order to find out if he was working for Voldemort.
3:50 but you do forgive a racist who is no longer racist, your first point is moot, people can and (thankfully) do change. The second point is also a non sequitur, we all make mistakes in anger, he didn't mean to kill his sister so you cannot point to his character being evil for it. The other points are pretty good, but you could argue it's just to fulfill the plot lol My head-canon is Dumbledore was more preoccupied with teaching haha Oh as for the Dursleys, he had to leave him there, it's a blood charm for protection which would only work with them, you could argue he could've threatened them to be nice to Harry though lol
Oh, by the way, you forgot the fact that Dumbledore was the one who cast the Phildelius spell. Which means he knew Peter was the keeper of the secret, which also means he knew Sirius wasn't guilty. He just let Sirius stay in Azkaban fo 12 years.
10:17 I actually think it was good for Harry to grow up not famous because then Harry would’ve turned out VERY different. Like Malfoy personality type, which would’ve had a huge affect on himself and the story. I’m not saying him getting abused was good, but it was prob good for like story reason ya know? So he’d be humble
To be fair,Ariana literally ends up disabled because of those muggles,she can’t do magic and she ends up with an obscurious. That obscurious kills his mom and will weaken and kill Ariana eventually. His father is sent to prison for attacking these muggles despite it arguably being justified. And for what reason did those muggles attack Ariana? Because she did magic. You can understand why to a child that wouldn’t be fair,it would lead to resentment,especially when you consider that all wizards are forced to hide their magic from muggles,forced to live in the shadows. I can understand why Grindlwald,his pretty much equal and best friend,is able to cause him to have those muggle hating thoughts,I mean if it’s okay for them to attack a witch for doing magic it must be okay for them to attack muggles for being weaker,right? I can see why he’d develop this idea that muggles are violent and hateful,just look at what happened to an innocent little girl for being even slightly different. Im not saying it’s okay or right,just that it’s understandable
Eh, I agree that Dumbledore would never actually be judged to be pure of heart, but I feel your arguments are somewhat inconsistent. First he's garbage for toying with an extremist ideology as a teen/falling in love with another extremist, which hindered his motivation to take him down...but then you criticize him for being cold, hands-off, and suspicious of Tom Riddle. Gee, I wonder if his previous experience of being emotionally invested in a bad guy might have made trying to mentor Tom Riddle seem like an idea that would backfire on him. The truth is simply that Dumbledore never nailed down the correct strategy for dealing with extremism, but people expected him to have answers and he made a lot of questionable choices in the hopes the ends would justify the means. JKR simply isn't up to the task of fully exploring this incredibly flawed person, because he's the leader of the Good Guys so he must be a Good Person by default.
She's not up to a lot of things. I still think it is criminal how under developed Filius Flitwick was. So many lost opportunities with him… And with raven claw house in general.
JK Rowling put a lot of Christian themes in the Potter books. The reason that she made Dumbledore like that was to show us that even our greatest heroes are flawed human beings and aren't the greatest people. The reason that Harry had to grow up in a horrible situation was because he had to have a hard life like Voldemort had. Jk Rowling wanted to emphasize that it isn't a person's upbringing that makes them who they are, but their choices. Voldemort had a traumatic childhood, and he chose to embrace evil. Harry also had a traumatic childhood, and he chose to embrace good. In the 5th book, Harry can hear Voldemort because he is a horcrux. Voldemort represents Satan, and Harry, having a part of Voldemort in him, represents sin. We all have a sin nature. We can either cave into it or fight it. Harry chose to fight it. Jk Rowling admitted that Harry Potter has Christian themes, and she was deeply influenced by her Catholic faith.
I neither like, nor hate, Dumbledore. I don't understand him, which is why I reserve my judgement of him to the back burner at this point, until I can properly weigh the evidence available to me. All that I can say, either for or against him, is this: I've been learning more and more that history is written by the victors. So maybe either direction is, unfortunately, hopelessly slanted. I need to examine the evidence a bit more, with an impartial attitude.
True that! I'm more of a grey neutral side here. In this movie case,I respect dumbledore but at the same time have no trust on him as far as I can throw. I did gather informations and facts based on the actions but in the end if harry potter was real,I'd stay neutral since its far away from the manipulation and conniving of both side between hypocrisy in the wizarding world since both dumbledore and voldemort did show insane ideal that is foolish and hypocrites. Most would probably think I am a coward for chosing neutral but rather be on the in-between then the two side who seems to be in favor of playing their own human chess and using them. Hmmmm a mechiavillian manipulator or a hyprocrite ego maniac tyrant seeeeee why I rather be safe....
@@jessaminesguerra3369 I can't help wondering if there were certain characters that probably did take more of a neutral stance. If you notice, some of his staff were not part of the order of the Phoenix or anything like that. People like Filius Flitwick, Pomona Sprout and people like that. Sure they fought in the final battle. But if you take somebody like Flitwick for example, he could have possibly had other, more personal and complex motives will be involved in that battle that perhaps may have not had anything to do with the institution of Hogwarts. For example… We know he cared very deeply for "his Ravenclaw's". So it stands to reason that he most likely have loved ones that he deeply cared for and was prepared to fight for. What I'm trying to say is, generally somebody like that may have been neutral in the scheme of things, but when push comes to shove, if his loved ones were getting hurt or killed, then he would stand and fight for them… Not because he was "taking sides", but because he was fighting for loved ones he couldn't fight for themselves. It's very complex, and I don't think the J.K. Rowling is up to the task of writing that sort of complex nuanced character. Or a complex situation like that. But yes, I think there were some very good people in the story that's probably did take a more neutral Stants. It's possible that somebody like Filius very well could've had the same reasoning as you… Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, so stay on neutral ground until your loved ones get hurt. I don't think it's anything cowardice on Filius's pat. Just basic self preservation and preservation of those you care about.
@@milanka882 reasonably. Most probably done for protection of loved ones,most have their ambition to continue on the greater ending of battle if they've won but I'm saying I'd rather clasify myself as neutral,neither hating dumbledore but rather indifferent but still respectful enough to see a general's mindset on war. I'm still not on voldemort's side consider his campaining too but still the action to technically showing dafiance to voldemort would have printed anyone as target hence still neutral unless relatives are in danger while staying out of dumbledore's presense. I just can't explain the chill that my instinct warns me if I am near any kind of manipulator since paranoia and doubt usually always would be forefront in my mind of choosing a side.
@@milanka882 Even now I stayed neutral consider I never vote for any candidacy in politics nor participate in groups that has "With us vs against us" mentality.
Hi Smarty Pants I really enjoy your videos they bring light and comedy to my day. I only have one problem and that is if you can please stop using blasphemy
I totally think Dumbledore is pretty villainous, but some of these points don’t make sense. Sure you can compare Albus to the school shooter that didn’t get to complete his plan, but a very key difference is that he used his considerable influence to pass pro muggle and pro muggle-born legislature for the rest of his life. No one really knew about Albus being friends with Grindelwald, because it literally only lasted for a summer in his little village where his family didn’t really have friends anyway. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to call Grindelwald the monster Albus created because Grindelwald was expelled from Durmstrang (a school known for being highly tolerant of the dark arts) because they felt he was doing too much. That was before he met Dumbledore, and the reason he was staying with his great aunt in Godric’s Hollow. I agree about Dumbledore being less than helpful with a young Tom Riddle. At the same time, if I was a professor I would also be carefully monitoring the kid who hung a pet bunny, and traumatized two of the other children in his orphanage so badly that they were never the same. Tom being a Parselmouth didn’t have to be a red flag because as Dumbledore told him, it’s uncommon but not unheard of, meaning there are others. It’s a magical talent some people have, just like being a Seer. Also, it wasn’t like anyone knew you needed to speak Parseltongue to open the Chamber or Secrets. Finally, Dumbledore wasn’t the Headmaster then, so it wasn’t even his decision to make an inquiry into Riddle. The ring is not a part of the Deathly Hallows lore, the resurrection stone was hidden inside the ring, so there was no reason for him to suspect anything. Also Dumbledore procured memories of Tom after he had already become Voldemort, so the whole Gaunt shack thing was not something he knew about while Tom was at school. Dumbledore left Harry with his only known living relatives, and more than that he left him with his mother’s only living relative. That way Harry had the protection of his mother’s sacrifice. I do think that when Mrs. Figg reported that Harry wasn’t being treated well, he could have Confunded the Dursley’s or got special permission to put the Imperius curse on them, so they would at least be nice to Harry
Or better yet, Dumbledore could have acted like he really did believe that muggles were equals, and talked to the Dursleys and got their consent to care for Harry. He could have sweetened the pot by offering child support, and on-call assistance from a mind-healing witch or wizard for advice and practical assistance. Said wizard could also keep an eye on things by popping in for regular visits, to make sure no abuse was going on.
Albus Dumbledore never truly loved or cared for anyone that wasn't related to him by blood or named Gellert Grindelwald. Anyone else to him was a piece on his chess board, to be manipulated, moved, used and sacrificed so he can achieve his goals. He chose to let Sirius suffer in prison for over a decade, knowing that he was innocent. He let Hagrid have a crime on the record despite knowing that he was innocent. In fact he fashioned him with a (maybe illegal) means to do magic, but only to do his bidding with. He put students in danger, he did not move against Voldemort when he should have and he basically manipulated people to lay down their lives for his cause. The only thing to be said for him is that he was also willing to die for his cause himself and that he truly believed that what he was working towards was - even all those decades after he beat Grindelwald - the Greater Good(TM). I disagree with you on the bigotry bit though. A person is made by the sum of their experiences. A particularly bad bully, a rapist or any other criminal that had significant effect on you, especially during your formative years can easily make you hate the whole "group" that person belongs to. That is normal. Not to the extend of "I want them all dead" of course, but dislike or distrust is perfectly average. For the "how can you love a person like that" bit? Well. I guess that is what everyone who has a friend who is in an abusive relationship asks themselves. If you truly love someone, you make excuses. You play stuff down. You ignore the worst bits. I did too, once. Loving a person that is bad for you and your friends..heck, even a danger to others, is possible and honestly that is nobody's fault. Also I hate that you make me defend Dumbledore.
Remus Lupin was another case in point. He was happy to let Lupin attend Hogwarts, but that was only so that he could use him eventually later in his chest game.
what you don't get is that unlike real life terrorists, wizards and muggles AREN'T equal. in the wizarding world, there is no equality. Wizards aren't beholden to our morality, why should they? Wizards operate on a whole different level than muggles, it just follows they have a different morality.
The reason so many people hate Dumbledore is because they compare his actions to ideal ones that aren't possible with the situations of the Harry Potter books and movies. In the first movie, Dumbledore said himself that Harry's famed status would make him a target for death eaters. His scar made him easy to recognize among wizards. In the books, being around blood family actually made it more difficult for death eaters to find him. Dumbledore also wasn't just responsible for Harry, but all of Hogwarts and the order of the Phoenix. He often tells information when Harry talks to him. Harry doesn't usually ask adults for help due to not having the best adults in his life growing up. Dumbledore's ability to see things from many angles means he knows which of the available options are the least risky and would have the best outcome. Even then he's not immune to the occasional miscalculation. He is human after all. If you claim he let Sirius Black rot in Azkaban, how would Dumbledore know? Sirius was locked up without a trial or proper investigation and all the known evidence pointed to him. Dumbledore wasn't there to witness the crime and the only evidence that could put Sirius in the clear was stuff that was only known to the Marauders, or strictly between Sirius and Peter.
Unpopular opinion but Lupin should have been expelled. He was a danger and even as a human he was a violent bully to snape and a trouble maker and tbh he deserved his fate for almost killing the guy
I totally agree that Dumbledore (the most powerful and knowledgeable wizard of the age) could’ve trained Harry himself from the very beginning without having to reveal the larger plan, instead of Harry barely surviving each event with the most dangerous dark wizard of all time.
except he doesnt want to train a child soldier. they keep repeating this throughout the whole series.
@@nunyabisniz8047 The fact that it says that over and over again is weird, you can raise a child to be prepared for the lingering dangers in his future and have him not turn into a child soldier. Once again, Joanne's logic makes no sense.
@@nunyabisniz8047 That makes him a massive hypocrite lol
@nunyabisniz8047 but that's all he is to Domblefore. A soldier in this war. Nothing more. Being raised just to die at the right time
My personal gripe with him is the house cup points stunt at the end of the first book/movie. While I agree that Harry Ron Hermione and Neville genuinely earned the points awarded to them they should have been given before the feast so the Slytherins don’t go in with false hope and have their win ripped out from under them. Very petty and hardly his worst deed but it’s bothered me since I was 12.
Their recognition needed to be told to the whole school. Neville also needed a massive confidence boost
Don't forget with Dumbledore giving Harry and his friends might have giving drago a new reason to hate him as sometimes a teacher might get a student angry or fed up with theme for picking favourites
I mean were the Slytherins any better? It's not like they weren't favoured by Snape who took many points from gryffindor unfairly, in front of the Slytherins mind you.
My dumbass college decided to do a house system(not based on hogwarts) and it was a running joke that the president(who was a retard pretending to be an intellectual) was going to give a shit ton of points to his favorite house at the end. Didn’t happen but I would have gotten a laugh out of it
@@tehdarknight1520 That is different from the headmaster carefully calculating how many points Gryffindor needs to win and then negating the academic work of three houses simply because he wanted Gryffindor to win by giving INSANE points for basically rulebreaking.
"He was young, he didn't know what he was doing."
Harry is, in some ways, a better example of this. He was magical, but raised in a household of muggles. When he would use magic (before being enrolled in Hogwarts, mind you), he truly didn't know what was causing these bizzarre, abnormal things to happen. Dumbledore, however, knew about his magical heratige, and was likely aware enough as a child to attempt to "blend in" a bit so that no muggles would "get wise" to the fact that Albus and his family are somewhat more than strange.
THANK YOU for pointing out that Dumbledore FORCES Harry to live with people who literally NEGLECT him & mistreat him (although you technically forgot to mention that Mrs. Figg IS there to "check up on" Harry, although she literally does NOTHING to stop the abuse & neglect, either, expect maybe report it back to Dumbledore who also does NOTHING for YEARS, so . . . ) & for saying that Dumbledore's NOT pure of heart!! He IS NOT!!! It SHOULD have been Newt OR Jacob!! NOT Dumbledore!! THAT'S the biggest thing that bothered me about the last Fanatisic Beasts movie!! 😒😣 So THANK YOU!! 😊
Speaking of Snape, Dumbledore did seem to et the Marauders get away with a lot. Even when Sirius nearly gets Snape killed and Lupin more traumatized than he already was, all Sirius got was dentention with Snape being tolld to keep his mouth shut.
Though, in defense of Dumbeldore, I get the feeling that, deep down, he regretted how cold he was with Tom. On the one hand, how can you love someone who lacks the abilitity to love? Yet, on the other, a little warmth could've gone a long way. So, out of his regret, he alllowed his wards/surrogate children to get away with bullying and mischief (i.e. Filch (?), Snape, the Marauders, maybe Draco, etc. In other words, Dumbledore may've overcompensated...
I don't think Dumbledore was even headmaster by then.
I'd like to submit that dropping Harry on the Dursley's doorstep with a letter wasn't just negligent, it showed a profound disdain for the Dursleys themselves. They had been a basically happy family before. Yes, Dudley was being spoiled, but Petunia and Vernon loved him and each other. Minerva may have judged them "the worst sort of Muggles" (a phrase which itself reeks of anti-Muggle bigotry), but they weren't evil or even bad.
I even have a headcanon that Dumbledore cast spells on Petunia and Vernon to make them mistreat Harry. After all, if he didn't want Harry "spoiled" by living in a Wizarding World that revered him as the Boy Who Lived, it wouldn't want him spoiled by being raised by overly-indulgent parents, either. Also, it was crucial to Dumbledore's plans that Harry was willing to die to protect Hogwarts. For this reason, he wanted Harry to view Hogwarts as his real home. If Harry was happy at the Dursleys, he might not be so uncritically enamored with the Wizarding World. He might even realize that he was being manipulated. Remember, Dumbledore was getting regular reports from Arabella Figg, so he knew exactly how Harry was being treated by his relatives. If he was willing to condone such abuse, you have to conclude that the manipulative mastermind would be willing to engineer such abuse as well.
That's a really good theory
The happiness of a child and a family in exchange for millions of lives saved.
@@abdirahmanidris290 More like hundreds (maybe thousands) of lives, the death eaters could do little against mordern muggle armies and the population of Wizarding Britain isn't very high.
Besides, Dumbuldore didn't knew about Voldemort extra lives and probably though just like the rest of the wizardin world that he was dead for good, so his manipulation came more as plan to get Harry away from the muggle world rather than a desire of stoping the supposedly dead Voldemort.
@@brandojoansaldanarivas6143 Actually, he always says Voldemort will return and Harry will be in great danger. He says it in Snapes memories right after Lily and James are killed
@@abdirahmanidris290 Oh, that's true, my mistake.
Still irksome how he seems to have manipulated Harry's upbringing. Besides how he did knew about Voldemort return but didn't seemed to do something to discover how Tom was still alive and where he was hidding. Otherwise Quirrel might not have to be possesed when he search for the dark lord alone for example.
He might have even pressed Slughorne to tell him about the horrocruxes using Felix Felicis just like Harry did (or using it to discover the horrocruxes in other way), the potion might be complicated he had around 14 years and a lot of influence and conections to do so.
I just thought of another group you didn't address though. He was okay with allowing Sirius Black to rot in Azkaban, knowing full well that he was innocent, and having the power through his connections etc to do something about his plight and he never did. That to me is absolutely disgusting.
I agree with you
When Dumbledore casts the Fidelius charm, Sirius is the secret keeper, then Sirius, Lily and James later change it in secret to Peter, so Dumbledore wasn’t initially aware. Then again, he should definitely have figured it out, getting memories from Sirius in jail like he did with other prisoners or something
what power? we didnt know what power the supreme mugwump has. It was clear Dumbledore didnt have enough political clout, he didnt even control the hogwarts school board, what power???
@@nunyabisniz8047His ability to read people.
Another example of him leaving kids in abusive households: Sirius and Regulus. I find it extremely hard to believe that no one realized how shitty their home life was. Even Molly Weasley, whose main personality trait is being a good mother to both her children and Harry, has sent a few Howlers in her time. If fucking MOLLY WEASLEY isn't above publicly telling her kids off like that, Walburga Black sure as hell wasn't. I sincerely doubt that when Sirius pissed his parents off, they made it easy for him to hide that. Dumbledore should have been well aware of Sirius's shitty home life and DONE something about it long before he had to run away himself. And even if he somehow didn't know before that point, he DEFINITELY would have known that one of his students was now under entirely different guardianship, and he should have asked why and realized that he should now be keeping an eye on REGULUS, who was still. fucking. there.
Dumbledore is just a school-headmaster and his political influences were limited, the Blacks were one of the most powerful pure-blood family, he couldn’t just take their children from them.
And also the Wizarding World doesn’t seem to have child services
This is perhaps the most absurd criticism I’ve seen in a comment section littered with falsehoods. Regulus was well liked by his parents and Sirius was able to rebel in his own ways. Just because they had extreme political beliefs doesn’t mean that they were abusive or should have their kids taken. This type of attitude is for losers. Furthermore, how would anybody know that he came from a bad household when Sirius was happy and had so much confidence? He got to be at Hogwarts for like 9 months out of the year and there’s no evidence that he or his brother were abused. It’s okay to disagree with people and not try to take their kids.
Sing it comrade!
Dumbledore Defense Squad✊
I knew something was up with him the moment he said he had a scar in his knee that's an accurate map of the entire London Underground in the opening chapters of the series, and that's why he thinks Harry's scar could be useful.
How and why does one get such a distinctive scar, and why SPECIFICALLY the subway trolley system??
And the fact that this NEVER became useful information later on. I waited my entire childhood reading those books as they released just to see if that particular tidbit would work for the plot, like, maybe he has knowledge of how to avoid Voldemort because gosh golly gee, why would You Know Who ever be on a Muggle train at some point, but nope, we never hear of it again and Dumbledore's been spouting nonsense since the beginning.
I bet he didn't even actually see himself holding socks in the Mirror of Erised. I bet he was lying about that too.
Like many authors Rowling has characters say strange-ass things that eventually lead to nothing.
About the Mirror of Erised he chose to not answer a very personal question with something very funny , which is rather armless more like a joke then a lie
These types of old men annoy the most. Even just Dumbledore offering up lemon drops in a way which suggests he's not taking the situation as seriously as he perhaps ought to tells me all I need to know about Dumbledore: the man lacks much empathy, remorse and care and he's willing to use and manipulate people as his own soldiers, make them do things that would only make them worse off and use their weaknesses against them having already failed them previously. He didn't just fail Harry or Voldemort, he failed all of Slytherin since he'd become a teacher at Hogwarts, allowing the interhouse rivalry and segregation of groups of people based on their beliefs and values to continue breeding some of the most toxic and harmful qualities and ways of thinking and acting known to humanity. And by failing Slytherin he also failed all other houses. As one of the eldest and most revered wizards at Hogwarts, he should've had the power and know-how, and most importantly *care* to not go risking other people willy-nilly, not even "strategically". This man, at best, belongs to purgatory, not heaven.
You’re going to complain about lemon drops? They were just trying to represent his eccentric side from the start. A lot of these criticisms simply aren’t fair.
8:01 This is the point I can give Dumbledore one break. At the time of Voldemort's years at Hogwarts, Dumbledore wasn't in charge. The Headmaster at the time was easily fooled by Riddle's charm and Hagrid's record for getting in trouble. Remember in book 2 Dumbledore guessed most of what had happened, as his not "who" but "how".
Yes but Dumbledore had plenty of opportunities to reach out to this troubled boy and he didn't. Even the little scene at the orphanage. He should have insisted on accompanying riddle to Diagon alley. He could have done so much more to reach out to him. I agree, perhaps the damage had already been done as he had grown up in an institution. But, Dumbledore didn't even try to help. He was happy to just send him on his way. Seriously, this guy should never be put in charge of children.
I feel poor DD gets blamed for far too much and expected to be god, so good point.
I agree with what is said here but I believe the true behind all of this is that Rawling wasn't taking to much time thinking when she was writing and did it all superficially. No big theories or secrets behind HP books. Of course I could be wrong.
I think you're right. There's a lot of lazy story telling. But if you're to use your immagination, it can be fun to fill in the gaps... or tweek...
Yeah, Rowlings writing was never well planned out. Just look at what she did with the timeturners and the house elves
There’s a lot of things I can’t forgive about Dumbledore, but to be fair, it makes sense for him to hide the fact that Harry is actually a horcrux until the right moment. Confess at the wrong time and there’s a better chance of Voldemort winning.
While you're right, he could have done literally anything to prepare harry short of actually telling him. Harry had two spells he mainly used. Dumbledore was one of if not thr strongest wizard of all time.
Dumbledore Third Hokage
Being terrible Guadians for the sake of the plot.
Fr tho
Everything happens for the sake of the plot. At least Kushina asked Sarutobi to look after Narurto (which he didn't by the way) who gave the right to dumbles to dictate Harrys life?
@@nirmalweerasinghe4360 Exactly
Dumbledore is no Dark Lord or saint, but in his goodness and soft power he's much more manipulative and terrifying than Voldemort could ever hope to be.
This due to the fact that Dumbledore is capable of loving others, and thus understands far more deeply what makes people tick. And Dumbledore has also (some) humility that Voldemort will never possess, causing D to second-guess himself quite often.
Just think how both Dumbledore and Voldemort understood Snape, and how this understanding contributed for the Voldie's eventual end.
Voldemort had really no chance against manipulator of Dumbledore's calibre.
What Bumblemore deserved, frankly, was Robert Baratheon.
“In my dreams, I kill him every night. A thousand deaths will still be less than he deserves.”
I love this video. All the gripes you have with Dumbledore are exactly the same gripes I have. But there is a bright side. Plenty of your own amusing and imaginings of how other… Perhaps more minor characters… Could respond to Dumbledore was awful miss, and perhaps even how they manage to "clean up" afterwards. But yes, he was definitely not the "pure hearted", and epitome of everything good that rolling wants us to believe.
I agree. I've been having fun for quite some time now about how Filius Flitwick would respond to Dumbledore. OK, he's part goblin so therefore could be considered at least partly an outcast. Dumbledore could have tried to manipulate Flitwick into his inner circle, playing on his goblin ancestry and the prejudice towards him. Let's see how that goes.
Well we know that Filius Flitwick was not a member of the Order. He was a staff member but not close to Dumbledore, and I would argue not even someone Dumbledore could even count on. But I would say that Filius was a complex character but I would say a lot more "pure of heart" than Albus. And even the dueling... he could have gone into that because he felt he had to prove himself... even to himself. Then he realised eventually that glory through dueling was not what it was cracked up to be. He then left all that behind and went into teaching. Perhaps he was someone who really wanted to help people. Perhaps the lack of pastoral care for students... and staff alike... at Hogwarts really bothered him as well. I'd say he is too complex a character for a mediocre author like JK Rowling to write. But anyway moving on...
I'd say that Flitwick was most likely a wake-up to Dumbledore. He may have had his reasons for staying at Hogwarts, but let's say that he is disgruntled with how badly Hogwarts is run under Dumbledore. Maybe he is disgusted with Snape's blatant abuse of his authority over students and the fact that Dumbledore and Minirva, who is part of his inner circle, turn a blind eye to it. Perhaps Flitwick is uncomfortable with Dumbledore's treatment of Harry, and has suspicions that Harry is in fact being abused, but can't confirm them. Maybe Flitwick is uncomfortable with Dumbledore's power games, especially with Hagrid and Lupin. There could be a hole laundry list of grievances Flitwick could have with Dumbledore.
But what if Flitwick is not the only staff member uncomfortable with Dumbledore's antics? What if there is a whole faction of Hogwarts faculty that agree with Flitwick? And what if this causes interpersonal conflict between staff members? For example, Minirva and Filius among others. Perhaps the fact that Flitwick refuses to be a yes man to Dumbledore is a thorn in Dumbledore's side. Flitwick refuses to give Dumbledore any ground so he "owes" Dumbledore nothing. Whatever the situation, perhaps Flitwick is less secretive, more approachable, more human and less arrogant and power hungry than Dumbledore. People see this... a disgruntled little man that smells a rat and isn't afraid to say things that others may be thinking. Someone who humbly calls a spade a spade. And to those disgruntled by both Dumbledore and the ministry/Voldy, that looks attractive... like they're "buddies in arms" or something.
I think people like Flitwick, if what I'm describing is possible, would fight alongside people like the DA and OoP but not necessarily because they support Dumbledore, or believe that the institution of Hogwarts is a hill worth dying on. They would fight for things like loved ones, those who can't fight for themselves, and because a moral compass tells them that what they are doing is right. But they don't look to Dumbledore, the minister for magic or Voldy as their leader.
IDK just spit balling. I think if anyone of the Hogwarts staff was a wake-up to Dumbledore it would be Flitwick. Being part goblin he may have been targeted by Dumbledore for manipulation in the past. Who knows? The possibilities are endless. But I think looking at a complex character like Flitwick and how he responds to Dumbledore would be fascinating. Flitwick is a good, kind person. But he's also not stupid. I think it would be a lot harder for Dumbledore to pull the wool over his eyes than it was to pull the wool over the eyes of the likes of Hagrid or Lupin, or even Snape. I actually think Flitwick would intensely dislike Snape.
Oh and I forgot to mention... Flitwick would be a good person to help with the "clean-up" after Dumbledore's death... of the carnage Dumbledore caused.
Dude, even if you're sympathetic to snape, it was a dick move to force snape to teach him. How much trauma can we cause bingo much?
He really puts the dumb in dumbledore..?
Fr tho
AND he just chucked Lupin into a fucking abandoned house- like was there any other way? I can think of so many.
The goal was to keep the murderous beast that Lupin turned into every full moon away from the people he would have hurt without hesitation.
Lupin agreed to such measures so that he could get an education any other headmaster would have denied him because of his condition.
So yes
@@jakobmzrdu7932still he knew Lupin was a danger and endangered student specifically snape who was almost killed as a child in the process . Lupin shoulda been expelled because even as a human he was a violent bully
No he wasn’t.
He never partook in the bullying of Sirius and James, instead he’s guilty of not impeding when he was named prefect due to his great fear of losing his friends
And about the Snape thing, Lupin had no say in the matter Sirius tricked Snape into going to the shack where Lupin was at the time transformed (and wolf-bane potion hadn’t been invented yet, so in every full moon Lupin would be dangerous)
He put Lupin in a position he knew was cursed, knowing that Lupin would have virtually no chance of finding employment after the curse was enacted. Surely he could have spared one of the other professors into that position and Lupin take that professor's position that wasn't cursed. At least the sacrificial professor would be able to find a job once out of Hogwarts. Did Dumbledore really care for Lupin? Nope. Lupin was just a chess piece like everyone else including Harry.
To me fair on chamber of scerects part it was clear Dumbledore wanted to think Tom riddle could be helped and redeemed and didn't want to think tom would ruin his chance of getting the help he needed or be doing these awful things as it like being a Parent as you want to think your kid not evil without seeing the early warnings
Whats interesting is Dumbledore is powerful enough to fight off Voldemort so yes hed be plenty safe at Hogwarts..
Albus Dumbledore is a light lord, exactly the same as a dark lord. The difference is he uses light magic instead of dark magic which makes him seem more benevolent and not evil. The problem with this is that the opposite is true. Because the evilness of his actions is hidden through manipulation and deception. Tom Riddle learnt to be like that from Albus Dumbledore when he was in school. However AD was the only one who TMR could not hide his true nature from. And eventually when TMR became LV he was being more open about his nature and desires. Just as his death eaters wore robes and masks to hide their identity, TMR used LV to hide his true identity.
However AD did more damage to wizarding society than either Grindelwald or Voldemort did. I have had others disagree with me about this of course, but I stand by my belief. We are told that AD turned down the minister for magic position because he was afraid of what he would do with that kind of power. I do not believe this is the real reason. As he already held 3 powerful full time positions at the same time (headmaster of hogwarts, chief warlock of the wizengamot, supreme mugwump of the international confederation of wizards), thus giving him more power over the entire wizarding world than he would ever have as prime minister of magical Britain. And to take up the post of prime minister, he would have to leave all of the other positions, thus decreasing his power.
Wizards lack of common sense meant that no one stood up to say this isn't right. And because of this wizarding society suffered, as AD couldn't give his full attention to just one position. The same can also be said of Minerva McGonagall, as she also had 3 full time positions (Deputy Headmistress, Head of Gryffindor and Transfiguration Professor). AD pushed most of his work as headmaster onto MM so he could deal with his other positions. As a result of this MM was not able to do her job as Deputy Headmistress properly, nor was she available to be a dedicated head of house to the Gryffindor students.
Ditto absolutely everything you have said. I would say that the cleanup is still probably going on cleaning up the mess as Dumbledore left… It is probably still going on 25… 26 years after his death. Not to mention the cleanup bill and the cost. I would certainly like to think that there are people who are dedicated to catching up so many traumatic and psychological wounds in so many people because of this man. Sometimes, I can't help wondering if characters like Filius Flitwick, do you know naturally kind people, who don't stick the limelight and don't want to power, would probably actually shine and come into their own as part of some sort of loosely organised, Motley, "cleanup crew".
@@milanka882 yes you are probably right. Although when it comes to Filius Flitwick he had his flaws too. What I mean is that, Luna Lovegood was a member of his house and yet she was the victim of bullying by the other Ravenclaw students. He as head of Ravenclaw house should have put a stop to it, but he didn't.
@@katmaresparkles9578 yes, he had his flaws too. He's human like the rest of us. In fact I've been exploring Filius Flitwick's character in depth in stories I'm writing. He's my fave character from the books to write about. So in my writings, I've explored this in depth. I think someone like Filius is, in terms, actually behind the 8ball when it comes to the Hogwarts staff. Let me explain.
1. I sat down and worked out just how many teaching hours there would be at Hogwarts per core subject, just for first five years. I worked out that the workload for teaching alone is enough for 2 teachers per core subject. And that's just for teaching hours per core subject for the first five years. I didn't get to adding the teaching hours for sixth and seventh years.
2. Normally at boarding schools, they are:
- single sex - not having teenagers of both genders with raging hormones locked up together with a 70-1 staff/student ratio. Recipe for disaster.
- usually have student support staff outside of the faculty to supervise/support the students outside of teaching hours eg house master/mistress etc. The duties that the heads of house at Hogwarts are expected to perform on top of their teaching responsibilities would normally be performed by aforementioned support staff. Well at least that was how boarding schools were run by the '90's anyway.
Under Dumbledore Hogwarts would have no doubt been stuck back in the 19th century. Add to that, due to the wizarding wars, coupled with a general disregard for basic child welfare in the wizarding world... particularly by the likes of Dumbledore, the amount of dysfunctional students generally would no doubt have been higher than in the 19th century.
So, you have a teacher doing the work of 2 teachers. He is also expected to be head of Ravinclaw house, thus assuming full parental responsibility over roughly 70 students at any given time. Not to mention the toxic work environment when under toxic headmasters like Dumbledore and toxic teachers such as Snape added into the mix of dysfunctional students. One man in an entirely dysfunctional system trying his best to make a difference. I've been in work environments like that myself, so trust me, I have sympathy for Filius, don't worry.
See the problem? Whenever I read about Filius Flitwick, I see a deeply caring, compassionate and kind person... genuinely so, not like Dumbledore who gives the impression of those qualities in order to manipulate people. It's obvious how deeply he cares for "his Ravinclaws". I would say he was "Luna" in his own school days... meaning being bullied, in his case for being part goblin.
I would hazard a guess that he actually does care about what happens to kids like Luna... and probably even Harry. He's part goblin, he's probably been there. I would say it deeply troubles him. But he's not super human... he's only human. And under the workload Dumbledore places on his staff, and the toxic work environment Dumbledore expects them to work in, I'd say Filius would do his best... but clearly his best is not enough. It's possible that he may know that as well.
If Hogwarts had better student support and employed more than one teacher per core subject, people like Filius Flitwick would be much more able to give kids like Luna Lovegood the support they need. Hogwarts is dysfunctional, a toxic both learning and working environment, and the blame for that has to lie squarely at the feet of Albus Dumbledore.
So, I do take your point regarding Filius. But that's what makes him such an interesting character to write about. How he relates to and responds to this load of toxicity he finds himself in. And how he comes out the other end. I would say he would most likely end up burning out after the Battle of Hogwarts, and possibly even taking a sabbatical for a while afterwards. I would love to see Hogwarts cleaned up, proper support staff employed and more teachers per core subject. I actually could imagine Filius Flitwick in more of a support or guidance role myself. I think he'd be happier. And I think he'd learn to live with himself as well.
@@katmaresparkles9578 oh I should also add to my above novel now that I've had a good night's sleep. :) I can't help wondering... Hogwarts clearly has a bullying culture and a high tolerance for bullying. If bully is so rife within the student body, and if teachers like Snape are getting away with bullying students with impunity, than it stands to reason that bullying most likely goes on among the faculty as well. I mean, we see this with McGonigall bullying Trelorny (please excuse spelling, I'm blind and I've only ever read the audio books), and of course Snape bullying Lupin. I wouldn't mind betting that old Snape hasn't had a go at Flitwick as well as Hagrid... I'd say both of them have no doubt been bullied at the hands of other faculty in their time. They'd just handle it differently.
Then of course Umbridge comes along and just merely takes what was already there up another notch. Dumbledore already plays his staff off against each other, expects things of his staff without giving them full explanations while at the same time expecting his staff to "trust him", and looks the other way at bullying generally. No wonder why Umbridge got a foothold, and no wonder why the faculty didn't mount a serious united opposition against her until the end. What she was doing was pretty much business as usual within the Hogwarts working environment, just on steroids.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that Hogwarts was a workplace as much as it was a school. And the boss, in this case Dumbledore, had a duty of care towards his staff as well as his students. Yet Dumbledore and duty of care clearly don't go in the same sentence. He used Hogwarts in order to gain power and to both recruit and play pieces on his chess board. He didn't care about the staff any more than the students. In this toxic environment, it's not surprising that staff like Filius Flitwick could not do the job of watching out for kids like Luna as well as necessary, or even as well as they'd like to. Dumbledore's lack of care for his employees would trickle... or in this case gush... down to the students, and the staff's ability to take care of them. Meaning that kids like Luna Lovegood fall through the cracks, as do teachers like Filius Flitwick.
I first read the books in my 20's, because that's how old I was when they came out. So I see the situation as it was for both the students... as a special needs student that I once was when I was at school roughly in the same time period that Harry was at school... and also from the point of view of the faculty and the sort of workplace Hogwarts would have been for them. I've been in toxic workplaces exactly like Hogwarts, and had bosses exactly like Dumbledore, and this is what makes me warm so much to Filius so much. I had some nasty... Snape/McGonigall... type special needs teachers in my time. I would have given my eye teeth to have had Filius Flitwick as a special needs teacher... on a tie with Remus Lupin. So that's where I'm coming from.
Of course it's also possible that JK Rowling is a bad righter and can't write these nuanced characters or situations properly because she doesn't have the skill beyond brilliant wordsmithing.
@@milanka882 I was also in my 20s when I read the books. I also would have been at Hogwarts during the time period the books are set in. And because of my house sorting, I would have been in Ravenclaw, with Flitwick as my head of house.
I always found it a little strange that people expected Dumbledore who was at the time just a Tranfiguration teacher at Hogwarts to be the one to fight against Grindelwald. At that time only Aberforth and Bathilda knew they were friendly so the fact that literally thousands of people were able to connect them in this way was more than a little weird. Yes, he was powerful, but it’s like the equivalent of asking Minerva Mcgonagall to lead the charge against Voldemort, even Harry points out in book 6 that many of the teachers who worked at Hogwarts were not involved in the OOTP or the war until Hogwarts was threatened. Even stranger still is that Dumbledore was in fact organizing an army of sorts at the time and it really puts Fudge’s suspicions in perspective about Dumbledore trying to turn students into soldiers because isn’t that exactly what happened to Harry?
Dumbledore was trying to turn children into soldiers. He succeeded as well. I would say fudge was right about that as well. He just went about front of it in the wrong way. I would hazard a guess that Dumbledore turning children into soldiers probably made a lot of the faculty very uncomfortable.
@@milanka882true
⚠️spoiler warning⚠️
Sure, let’s say Petunia was protecting Harry with some magical blood pact. Here’s my problem. HARRY WAS ALREADY PROTECTED WITH HIS MOTHER’S SACRIFICE. He would have been even safer at Hogwarts, where he could be even stronger. That’s something Dumbledore KNEW. It doesn’t take a genius to look at Harry’s letter and see ‘under the stairs’. I wouldn’t be surprised if he purposefully hid that from McGonagall because she does not seem like the kind of person to let that slide. Then he suddenly dies and leaves Harry with absolutely no idea what to do. Don’t tell me he couldn’t have just told Harry the plan, because he COULD HAVE.
The “magical blood pact of Petunia” was Harry’s mother’s sacrifice as long as Harry lived with the blood- relative of his mother the magic would remain strong.
I mean, iirc in the books it was said that whem Dumbledore's sister gpt killed *they didn't know which one of them hit her.* So all three of them were throwing around curses bad enough to kill someone. Even if it wasn't Albus who hit her it doesn't make it any better regardless of whether he started it or whether Grindelwald was fighting or not
This was an interesting video, even if I don't particularly agree with you.
You were right in saying that Dumbledore was a pretty shitty person in his youth, and that his experience with muggles doesn't excuse his bigotry towards them. However, by the time he dies he clearly no longer holds those views. This I think is a positive message. This is to say that people should try to find redemption and learn to be better than they used to be. I don't think Dumbledore was by any means perfect, but I don't think he was necessarily a terrible person either.
Also, the points you mentioned regarding Voldemort are probably just plot-holes, but I may be wrong.
To me the hafe blood prince is where i think Dumbledore or the school staff should of got drago into a counselling talk to see how he was giving the fact what happen with his father and over the films was a approval seeker shows drago is a tragic character in the harry potter fandom as it like looking at chloe in ladybug who like drago is a approval seeker and does things to feel notice
I don't need to be better shitty Pronatalist!
I have LITERALLY read so many Manipulative/Dark Dumbledore fanfiction that it is my favorite genre.. Holy moly.. It is probably the only Harry Potter thing (outside of the games) I still like. I read so many absolutely amazing manipulative Dumbles stories. The best of which was one relating to Vampires of all things. Dumbledore was legitimately evil in this and did many bad things.
The closed caption at 12:34 stating "you'd try to make sure that the next *dolphin* you're in charge of would have the best support he can get" 😂
There is a lot in both the films and books that could be more fleshed out. Dumbledore is definitely more nuanced than he is credited for. Voldemort has valid reasons for his descent to evil, but it is approached in a corny over the top manner. Harry absolutely should have easily fell to Voldemort's influence given not just by his connection but Harry's upbringing. I don't know about you, but being raised by an aunt and uncle like that I most likely would resent those who left me there and take revenge on those responsible the second I learn of my powers and celebrity status. Also, Harry could not hide anything from Voldemort. There is absolutely no way Voldemort would have not been two steps ahead of the trio at all times. The set up Rowling lays out leads perfectly to Harry becoming the next dark lord.
It’s odd I’m typically one of the people that agree that Dumbledore could of done a lot more. But I guess I’ve also created my own head logic that explains he’s a flawed man. But your video makes me kinda just dislike the writing and what jk is doing. 😢
Same
i do see what you're saying, or trying to see, but i know people are gonna be upset, we live in an optimists culture, and this is mostly negative. i do think the more time passes, the more we realize J.K. Rowling wasn't exactly that great a writer, i love the Wizarding World as a concept, and many of the characters, but i see it has flaws
True but don’t generalize “optimist culture”
@@RandomGirl785 apologies no offense intended, i'll do my best
Yeah, but rather childish and fake optimism. Real optimism would include that even the worst people can change. Within the Harry Potter fandom, it's rather childish denial and living in "perfect favourite characters" bubbles.
Anyone who thinks she's a good writer is blinded by childhood nostalgia.
If the Potters were thought to be safe under the Fidelius charm, why could the Weasleys not be under the Fidelius Charm, with one of them as Secret Keeper ? Dumbledore made an utter pig's ear of looking after Harry. Dumbles is utterly unscrupulous, extremely manipulative. He is arguably a greater villain than Voldy.
That is admittedly a plot-hike from Rowling in how the Fidelius Charm works: first she makes it like people that live under a Fidelius can’t be their own Secret Keeper to then retcon that in DH
Lol, I didn't want to believe that Dumbledore was a villain but after I watched FB3 I realized that he was the real villain. Everything bad that happened was because of him. All Tom Riddle wanted is to be loved and accepted. He was just seeking attention. He thought that Dumbledore loved him but he didn't. This is why love protecting spells defeated him. And Grindelwald was just heartbroken. Dumbledore broke his heart. In all movies Dumbledore manipulates everyone to help him lessen the consequences of the heartbreaks and evil he created.
Oh please breaking someone’s heart doesn’t make you at fault for them becoming a wizard nazi, nor does not loving a student. Could he have done better sure but blaming Grindelwald and Voldemorts own decisions on him is a massive stretch.
@Sanglap ghosh I always found that bit of info exceedingly dumb. With love potions being so readily available that you can buy them in normal shops in diagon alley, it is very hard to imagine that kids being conceived under them isn't a regular occurence. Tom Riddle wasn't conceived with love. Okay. But more importantly, he never was shown any love or affection as a kid (aside from Professor Slughorn maybe).
Okay, I think many of these could be kind of defended. To me the fact that he didnt entrust whole secret of deadly hollows and horcrux information to Harry because he wanted him to posses them safely and do things the right way is just a peak of god complex. Im sorry. I understand that he didnt want to tell him about Snape, and his suicide strategy, because Harry might be too emotional to let it happen. But regarding the deadly hollows and horcruxes, Harry proved time and time again that he is very selfless and doesnt seek power. Why not just telling him, instead of leaving these obscure clues like he is an enigma decipher. Oh and also telling him how to destroy horcruxes would be nice too, since he definitelly knew at least one way. He literally prepared his own death. Which means right before that he could entrust Harry everything he needed to know.
To be honest, this is one of the least factual videos I’ve ever seen. We all know why Dumbledore didn’t fight Grindelwald initially because it’s explicitly explained in the 7th book. We also know why he was left with the Dursleys each year if we have critical thinking skills. Most of these criticisms are completely unfair. Dumbledore is not responsible for Snape’s behavior and Snape actually helped look after Harry in his own way. I don’t think Snape redeemed himself, but he played a very important role. I’d be shocked if you’ve ever read the books all the way through. So many outright lies and half truths.
Sing it comrade.
Dumbledore Defense squad ✊
From what my dad told me is that Harry’s family help hide him away with their muggle aura or whatever from what the books imply? which I mean would make sense but like would the villains really sit there and fall for that for years? I mean for the first two books and most of his child years yeah but not for the rest of book 3 and onward 😑 like shouldn’t he be with strong wizards who can protect him or something! It made no sense to keep him going back to those people.
Before this Dumbledore Grindelwald friendship + rubbish, I always tfound people were far too hard on Dumbledore. They expected him to be god, to solve all problems, to be super human. But he did his best and many constantly tossed stones at him even when he was the only one anyone knew of standing against Voldemort with the first order. Then the Grindelwald thing. Before Rowling's shocking' plot twist about DD's friendship with GG we just knew Dumbledore stepped in to stop him. He's already in law, so that's logical. No connection between the 2 was even hinted at. When reading a good mystery you can re-read it later and see clues. That's what makes it a mystery. Mrs. Rowling, however, just flying by the seat of her literal pants just makes it up as she goes and this shows. She decides to have DD and GG being all whatever and really this ruins DD's character rather than making him human. I won't accept it, though, as it makes no sense. I feel the original author can still go ooc, not canon and it isn't right and this she did it. Sorry I won't ever see that as actual, cause it really doesn't fit either man's personality to stand the other for more than 5 minutes simply because they have a few things in common sorta kinda.
Bella L
Huh, fair and valid points and opinions.
6:47 he did, he told harry how he tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time being wary of the sociopath who took pleasure in torturing others and who felt no affection towards any other human being!
guess he did say that, but those actions are not shown anywhere...
Maybe he had early stage alzheimer's? That's why he was so focused on collecting his own memories.
Albus is horrible but the thing with awful ideologies are that people get trapped in them often because they are hurt or afraid so not talking again to someone who in the age of 15-17 thought of awful things will not help the world because awful people will have more grip onto this person if other people ostrasise them just for their teenage bad beliefs and that's not just my view but Bertolt Brecht's
I dunno, there's probably something wrong with me... But if you survived a school in Eastern Europe, Snape's "bullying" feels like a tender caress
I love Dumbledore. He might be a morally gray person and a complex asshole, but he is an awesome character.
True ig
Not to mention he knowingly gave a pedagogical position to :a guy whom he knew to be a : dark agent ( with V. In his body) /a crook with no magical talent & insufferable character, a potentially dangerous warewoolf. He also unknowingly gave it to a dark agent disguised as his personal, long term friend (which makes him look stupid as well).
I think the wizards should realize 2 things:
1) Wizards are just muggles with a longer lifespan and flashy sticks
2) We can destroy the entire Wizarding World in .2 seconds with a press of a button (Nukes. I mean nukes)
I think we'll be fine 🙃😁
You cant spell Dumbledoor without Dumb
I will say that as far as the films go, I like Dumbledore in the first couple movies with the original actor. I started liking him less and less with every movie after the first two though. By the time I get to Half-Blood Prince I wasn't super sad that Dumbledore died, which is strange because his death was built up to be so emotional and impactful, and yet I felt more emotions when a character like Sirius, or heck, even DOBBY died compared to Dumbledore
I think that an issue with JK Rowlings writing style is that she tries to throw some sort of twist or event in characters backstories to make them more morally grey than initially depicted but because of how she handles it, it gets botched.
Dumbledore and Snape are good examples. Snape is a horrible antagonistic bully but because it turns out he loved harry's mother, the story views him as some sort of tragic figure that the fandom eats up for some reason.
Then there's Dumbledore himself. He's depicted as this "BIG GOOD" throughout the series, we're told he's amazing and 90% of what he does and how he acts supports this, but I think there was probably enough within the first couple of books to analyse and question some of Dumbledores decisions to make him more morally grey.
Yes he had to leave harry with the Dursleys to keep that protection from Voldermort and his followers, since Harry staying there keeps him safe due to to Lilly's sacrifice being strengthened by their blood ties. They are his only living relatives. Physically, Harry is safest, but emotionally and mentally, he'll be broken by them and honestly it's amazing he's as well adjusted as he is when he gets to Hogwarts. Yet... maybe you can argue that leaving Harry anywhere else puts him in much more danger from some of Voldermorts more dangerous supporters, or Voldermort himself.
Also, avoiding Harry in the fifth book is also justified, since it's much more than Voldermort reading his mind. If I recall, there's a moment in the books where Harry sees Dumbledore and gets an overwhelming urge to attack and kill him. Basically, Voldermort is using their connection to try and control him, and Dumbledore clearly doesn't know how to deal with it. As good as Dumbledore is, he doesn't know everything. He isn't able to break Voldermorts curse on the DADA job and he eventually gets fatally wounded by the curse on the ring, so Dumbledore clearly didn't always have the answers, or the ability to correct everything Voldermort was doing. I consider this one of those times. A lot of the magic Voldermort employed was HIGHLY unusual and advanced, even for someone like Dumbledore to deal with.
So yeah, not perfect but I think given some hand waving, we can mostly see him as he's depicted in those first 6 books as the wise and mostly good leader.
The problem I think, truly comes in book 7 with his backstory with Grindlewald. It's like I said, she threw a twist in there to make him more morally grey, but in doing so, it destroys his character because it makes him out to be a blood supremacist. He was obviously willing to commit murder, enslavement, and other war crimes. Honestly, I think in this case, Rowling went way too far and it permanently impacted how we see him as a character.
I think she did the same thing with James - we see in a memory that James was willing to do something that some people interpret as sexual assault. Because this is the only first hand evidence we see of James as a person, it paints him as a pretty horrific individual. All the second hand evidence of 'Oh actually he was a great person, trust us" just doesn't hold water to that. Again, Rowling went too far.
I think she had the right idea, but the way she executed those ideas left things open enough for us to look at some of the characters and see them better - or worse - than intended to a point where it's jarring.
7:00 his mother and father weren't related, which according to one guy I watched, causes a genetic reset. Also it's worth remembering that rowling believes that no one is born evil.
to be fair on the chamber of scrects part i feel Dumbledore wanted to think Tom was a good kid deep down and thought someone else might of been behind the opening of the chamber well not admitting Tom was to far gone to be helped and saw Harry as the one good thing that came out of the mess much like a parent see their one good kid as the one good thing that came out of a mess
"no one is born evil"
Except voldemort. Because he's born from rape.
So to summarise your main points as to why dumbledore was such a terrible person:
1. he had adopted a dangerous ideology briefly when he was a teenager.
2. He put off facing Grindelwald (which was explained in deathly hallows because he didn't want to face the truth of who killed his sister)
3. He didn't do enough to stop young tom riddle (when I'm pretty sure the idea was that riddle was hard to catch in the act and that the rest of the staff trusted him)
oh, and he didn't realise that Riddle's ring was one of the deathly hallows. Which took close examination for Dumbledore to realise.
What about leaving harry on the doorstep of relatives he KNEW weren't of any good, instead of finding adoptive parents or smth
@@bismuthezoid This was explained, didn't you read order of the phoenix?
@@bismuthezoid adoptive parents who? You can probably interpret the law the same as muggle, oprhan child will go to the closest family relative. Either it's petunia or Malfoy. Since Harry paternal side has Black line.
@@Anonomius0 Just because there was a reason behind it does not mean its right.
Besides, even if its immoral, surley they could have used some sort of magic to make the Dursley's believe Harry and Dudley were twins or something, make them love both equally, and when Harry turned out to be a wizard it would be explained by Petunia also having the gene for magic even if never was activated like it was in Lily
@@maximillian1109that’s so true
And this folks is why you actually plan the whole story out before you start writing, instead of just putting whatever pops into your head on the page without checking to see if your cool ideas are going to have implications you dont want
Yeah Dumbledore could've put the love protection onto someone's house instead of letting him get abused and neglected all because "they're the only family he has" .
When they said his heart was pure, they didn't say pure good.
This is not a defense of Dumbledore I just want to point out one or two things, I would also like to point out that the pact states he can’t stop grindelwald didn’t say anything about not being able to stop faceless minion #437 there are work arounds, the goblet of fire has a binding magical contract which forces you to compete idk if it means in the tasks specifically or you can’t drop out it’s not clear, I don’t think he ever went to Azkaban to get memories if you can point out where it is specifically stated he did so I’ll agree on that point, as for the extended family’s I think they’d Dursleys were the only ones left and McConigall was only there for one day as stated in the 1st book so yes she is not the best source of info and ms figg and others were watching to protect him but I don’t see why they didn’t tell him about the abuse and he step in like he kinda did in the 6th book,
thank you. I am so glad that I'm not crazy for thinking this.
I always thought the guy was a bit off when I watched the movies, but it amplified when I finally read the books years ago (I thought the that this guy was an arse at best. and I still think that). But the only people I can find who also think that are the Tom riddle x Harry Potter shippers, so I thought I was going crazy.
It's funny how Rowling was convinced she was writing a deep series full of complex characters when the series's morality is black and white "Harry and friends good, anyone else bad." And Snape and Dumbledore were the only characters she tried to make more complicated which backfired and left Snape as a whiny incel whose answer to being bullied and friendzoned was to join a racist cult, asked Voldemort to kill James and Harry so he could have Lily, only started helping Dumbledore try to kill Voldemort after Voldemort killed her too not out of remorse for his crimes as a Death Eater. Then he used a teaching job to bully a kid because the kid's dad bullied him and the kid's mother didn't want to date him. And Dumbledore came off as a manipulative old man who never actually let go of his and Grindelwald's "for the greater good" excuse, put Harry with the Dursleys and had the sick belief that the only way he could grow up humble was being abused and I'm convinced that he did it purely to make himself and Hogwarts seem better in comparison. Then he pretended to care about Harry just to get him to sacrifice himself to destroy the Horcrux.
Well said.
I think his biggest flaw by now is being a goddamn coward. He saw what he can do when he's in full power and arrogant about it, so instead of learning to trust his own redemption and use his strength for good on a large scale, he hides away as a school teacher and never takes any chances. Orphan parseltongue kid looks suspicious? Why, what better method of making sure he doesn't turn bad but sitting in the sidelines and watching him with slinted eyes in silence. Take a tiny risk to make sure an orphaned kid doesn't stay with his abusive relatives? What are you, crazy?
If he was actually selfish and malicious he could've groomed Harry into a perfect little soldier the moment he found out about the prophecy, not left anything up to chances. Instead, he took care of as many horcruxes as possible and generally tried to help and alleviate pressure from Harry's shoulders as much as possible, while still shying away from the spotlight. He's just a dude with insane power who started out wrong, got scared of his own mislead ambitions, and refused to use his power to its full extent for the rest of his life. A coward who needed to deal with his trauma, essentially.
o.o
He fought voldemort and grindelwald. The opposites of a coward
@@abdirahmanidris290 ur missing the point
@@seven-teabags nah. He feared grindelwald but he eventually faced him. So he was once a coward but he fought that weakness or his
@@seven-teabags Not trustint yourself isn't cowardly. Its heroic. He realised his flaws and turned down power
I always thought that Dumbledore should have been in slytherin
I mean snape isn’t a great character but he was the one in the background saving Harry not dumbledore
The dum is pretty mah to me I just like the fighting and action and the story about harry a bit I do love the game it’s really cool
No no no he's pure of heart alright. But as Harm from Young Justice has said: "No one said the heart has to be pure good."
7:10 ok, now I'm confused. First you accuse Dumbledore of being too harsh on young voldie, now you're accusing him of being too lenient? Pick a lane!
7:16 sigh, no, no, no, no. It is worth remembering that no one knew that the monster was a basilisk, all they knew that the monster could only be controlled by the heir of Slytherin. And, ok in hindsight, it should have been obvious it was a basilisk, but despite being well known as a parselmouth, they only put it together that it was a basilisk due to other clues in chamber of secrets.
7:55 I'm pretty sure he did, as harry told riddle I bet Dumbledore saw right through you, but remember, Dumbledore was not headmaster at this time, and it's not like there's been no other time that authority figures hadn't listened to Dumbledore.
Rhaegar Targaryen pursued his prophecies just like Dumbledore - and thousands died for it. Both of them were moronic narcissists of the highest order.
Dumbledore is not evil. He's a plot device. And he should have stayed a plot device, rather than Rowling trying her best to make his behavior coherent and motivated. Dumbledore was just weird and quirky before Rowling tried to give him a convoluted and frankly stupid backstory.
Personally, I'd rather dismiss everything that came after the Half-Blood Prince and keep Dumbledore's motivations as an enigma, because clearly Rowling fucked up badly after that. I know she tried to make him a deeply troubled and morally grey character, but clearly she didn't have the writing chops to do so. So, personally, I'd just forget everything that Rowling tried to do with the character, rather than pretend she had some great vision in mind all along (as she has pretended a million times before).
I dislike him..., but I hate the toad in pink.
I'd like to point out that all of Voldemort's follower's get matching tattoos that seem impossible to conceal. They could have just asked Sirius to roll up his sleeves in order to find out if he was working for Voldemort.
I believe the marks disappeared when Voldemort fled. Thus, it wasn't easily determined.
3:50 but you do forgive a racist who is no longer racist, your first point is moot, people can and (thankfully) do change.
The second point is also a non sequitur, we all make mistakes in anger, he didn't mean to kill his sister so you cannot point to his character being evil for it.
The other points are pretty good, but you could argue it's just to fulfill the plot lol
My head-canon is Dumbledore was more preoccupied with teaching haha
Oh as for the Dursleys, he had to leave him there, it's a blood charm for protection which would only work with them, you could argue he could've threatened them to be nice to Harry though lol
Oh, by the way, you forgot the fact that Dumbledore was the one who cast the Phildelius spell. Which means he knew Peter was the keeper of the secret, which also means he knew Sirius wasn't guilty. He just let Sirius stay in Azkaban fo 12 years.
The Potters themselves casted the charm and under Sirius’ direction named Peter, they didn’t tell this to anyone including Dumbledore
And hagrids film actor ?
😂👍🔜🤔😬🎬🙂🥲
I hate him too!
10:17 I actually think it was good for Harry to grow up not famous because then Harry would’ve turned out VERY different. Like Malfoy personality type, which would’ve had a huge affect on himself and the story. I’m not saying him getting abused was good, but it was prob good for like story reason ya know? So he’d be humble
You can be humble without being abused yk…
@@emmacurran5259that’s true
@@emmacurran5259 Exactly. What sort of sick logic is "The only way to grow up humble and not arrogant is to be abused?"
Literally hate him
To be fair,Ariana literally ends up disabled because of those muggles,she can’t do magic and she ends up with an obscurious. That obscurious kills his mom and will weaken and kill Ariana eventually. His father is sent to prison for attacking these muggles despite it arguably being justified. And for what reason did those muggles attack Ariana? Because she did magic. You can understand why to a child that wouldn’t be fair,it would lead to resentment,especially when you consider that all wizards are forced to hide their magic from muggles,forced to live in the shadows. I can understand why Grindlwald,his pretty much equal and best friend,is able to cause him to have those muggle hating thoughts,I mean if it’s okay for them to attack a witch for doing magic it must be okay for them to attack muggles for being weaker,right? I can see why he’d develop this idea that muggles are violent and hateful,just look at what happened to an innocent little girl for being even slightly different. Im not saying it’s okay or right,just that it’s understandable
Dumbledore = The Silver Lord
Eh, I agree that Dumbledore would never actually be judged to be pure of heart, but I feel your arguments are somewhat inconsistent. First he's garbage for toying with an extremist ideology as a teen/falling in love with another extremist, which hindered his motivation to take him down...but then you criticize him for being cold, hands-off, and suspicious of Tom Riddle. Gee, I wonder if his previous experience of being emotionally invested in a bad guy might have made trying to mentor Tom Riddle seem like an idea that would backfire on him. The truth is simply that Dumbledore never nailed down the correct strategy for dealing with extremism, but people expected him to have answers and he made a lot of questionable choices in the hopes the ends would justify the means. JKR simply isn't up to the task of fully exploring this incredibly flawed person, because he's the leader of the Good Guys so he must be a Good Person by default.
She's not up to a lot of things. I still think it is criminal how under developed Filius Flitwick was. So many lost opportunities with him… And with raven claw house in general.
JK Rowling put a lot of Christian themes in the Potter books. The reason that she made Dumbledore like that was to show us that even our greatest heroes are flawed human beings and aren't the greatest people.
The reason that Harry had to grow up in a horrible situation was because he had to have a hard life like Voldemort had. Jk Rowling wanted to emphasize that it isn't a person's upbringing that makes them who they are, but their choices. Voldemort had a traumatic childhood, and he chose to embrace evil. Harry also had a traumatic childhood, and he chose to embrace good.
In the 5th book, Harry can hear Voldemort because he is a horcrux. Voldemort represents Satan, and Harry, having a part of Voldemort in him, represents sin. We all have a sin nature. We can either cave into it or fight it. Harry chose to fight it.
Jk Rowling admitted that Harry Potter has Christian themes, and she was deeply influenced by her Catholic faith.
I neither like, nor hate, Dumbledore. I don't understand him, which is why I reserve my judgement of him to the back burner at this point, until I can properly weigh the evidence available to me. All that I can say, either for or against him, is this: I've been learning more and more that history is written by the victors. So maybe either direction is, unfortunately, hopelessly slanted. I need to examine the evidence a bit more, with an impartial attitude.
True that!
I'm more of a grey neutral side here. In this movie case,I respect dumbledore but at the same time have no trust on him as far as I can throw. I did gather informations and facts based on the actions but in the end if harry potter was real,I'd stay neutral since its far away from the manipulation and conniving of both side between hypocrisy in the wizarding world since both dumbledore and voldemort did show insane ideal that is foolish and hypocrites. Most would probably think I am a coward for chosing neutral but rather be on the in-between then the two side who seems to be in favor of playing their own human chess and using them. Hmmmm a mechiavillian manipulator or a hyprocrite ego maniac tyrant seeeeee why I rather be safe....
@@jessaminesguerra3369 I can't help wondering if there were certain characters that probably did take more of a neutral stance. If you notice, some of his staff were not part of the order of the Phoenix or anything like that. People like Filius Flitwick, Pomona Sprout and people like that. Sure they fought in the final battle. But if you take somebody like Flitwick for example, he could have possibly had other, more personal and complex motives will be involved in that battle that perhaps may have not had anything to do with the institution of Hogwarts. For example… We know he cared very deeply for "his Ravenclaw's". So it stands to reason that he most likely have loved ones that he deeply cared for and was prepared to fight for. What I'm trying to say is, generally somebody like that may have been neutral in the scheme of things, but when push comes to shove, if his loved ones were getting hurt or killed, then he would stand and fight for them… Not because he was "taking sides", but because he was fighting for loved ones he couldn't fight for themselves. It's very complex, and I don't think the J.K. Rowling is up to the task of writing that sort of complex nuanced character. Or a complex situation like that. But yes, I think there were some very good people in the story that's probably did take a more neutral Stants. It's possible that somebody like Filius very well could've had the same reasoning as you… Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, so stay on neutral ground until your loved ones get hurt. I don't think it's anything cowardice on Filius's pat. Just basic self preservation and preservation of those you care about.
@@milanka882 reasonably. Most probably done for protection of loved ones,most have their ambition to continue on the greater ending of battle if they've won but I'm saying I'd rather clasify myself as neutral,neither hating dumbledore but rather indifferent but still respectful enough to see a general's mindset on war. I'm still not on voldemort's side consider his campaining too but still the action to technically showing dafiance to voldemort would have printed anyone as target hence still neutral unless relatives are in danger while staying out of dumbledore's presense. I just can't explain the chill that my instinct warns me if I am near any kind of manipulator since paranoia and doubt usually always would be forefront in my mind of choosing a side.
@@milanka882 Even now I stayed neutral consider I never vote for any candidacy in politics nor participate in groups that has "With us vs against us" mentality.
Hi Smarty Pants I really enjoy your videos they bring light and comedy to my day. I only have one problem and that is if you can please stop using blasphemy
What’s wrong with using it like you must be a kid or something 😂 to be this sensitive about swearing lol
RIP dumbledores both actors ! In the films !🤔😂🔜
I totally think Dumbledore is pretty villainous, but some of these points don’t make sense.
Sure you can compare Albus to the school shooter that didn’t get to complete his plan, but a very key difference is that he used his considerable influence to pass pro muggle and pro muggle-born legislature for the rest of his life. No one really knew about Albus being friends with Grindelwald, because it literally only lasted for a summer in his little village where his family didn’t really have friends anyway.
Also, I don’t think it’s fair to call Grindelwald the monster Albus created because Grindelwald was expelled from Durmstrang (a school known for being highly tolerant of the dark arts) because they felt he was doing too much. That was before he met Dumbledore, and the reason he was staying with his great aunt in Godric’s Hollow.
I agree about Dumbledore being less than helpful with a young Tom Riddle. At the same time, if I was a professor I would also be carefully monitoring the kid who hung a pet bunny, and traumatized two of the other children in his orphanage so badly that they were never the same.
Tom being a Parselmouth didn’t have to be a red flag because as Dumbledore told him, it’s uncommon but not unheard of, meaning there are others. It’s a magical talent some people have, just like being a Seer. Also, it wasn’t like anyone knew you needed to speak Parseltongue to open the Chamber or Secrets. Finally, Dumbledore wasn’t the Headmaster then, so it wasn’t even his decision to make an inquiry into Riddle.
The ring is not a part of the Deathly Hallows lore, the resurrection stone was hidden inside the ring, so there was no reason for him to suspect anything. Also Dumbledore procured memories of Tom after he had already become Voldemort, so the whole Gaunt shack thing was not something he knew about while Tom was at school.
Dumbledore left Harry with his only known living relatives, and more than that he left him with his mother’s only living relative. That way Harry had the protection of his mother’s sacrifice. I do think that when Mrs. Figg reported that Harry wasn’t being treated well, he could have Confunded the Dursley’s or got special permission to put the Imperius curse on them, so they would at least be nice to Harry
Or better yet, Dumbledore could have acted like he really did believe that muggles were equals, and talked to the Dursleys and got their consent to care for Harry. He could have sweetened the pot by offering child support, and on-call assistance from a mind-healing witch or wizard for advice and practical assistance. Said wizard could also keep an eye on things by popping in for regular visits, to make sure no abuse was going on.
Not to mention he let Harry’s dad and his friends bully snake so much they almost killed him .
Albus Dumbledore never truly loved or cared for anyone that wasn't related to him by blood or named Gellert Grindelwald. Anyone else to him was a piece on his chess board, to be manipulated, moved, used and sacrificed so he can achieve his goals. He chose to let Sirius suffer in prison for over a decade, knowing that he was innocent. He let Hagrid have a crime on the record despite knowing that he was innocent. In fact he fashioned him with a (maybe illegal) means to do magic, but only to do his bidding with. He put students in danger, he did not move against Voldemort when he should have and he basically manipulated people to lay down their lives for his cause. The only thing to be said for him is that he was also willing to die for his cause himself and that he truly believed that what he was working towards was - even all those decades after he beat Grindelwald - the Greater Good(TM).
I disagree with you on the bigotry bit though. A person is made by the sum of their experiences. A particularly bad bully, a rapist or any other criminal that had significant effect on you, especially during your formative years can easily make you hate the whole "group" that person belongs to. That is normal. Not to the extend of "I want them all dead" of course, but dislike or distrust is perfectly average.
For the "how can you love a person like that" bit? Well. I guess that is what everyone who has a friend who is in an abusive relationship asks themselves. If you truly love someone, you make excuses. You play stuff down. You ignore the worst bits. I did too, once. Loving a person that is bad for you and your friends..heck, even a danger to others, is possible and honestly that is nobody's fault. Also I hate that you make me defend Dumbledore.
Remus Lupin was another case in point. He was happy to let Lupin attend Hogwarts, but that was only so that he could use him eventually later in his chest game.
what you don't get is that unlike real life terrorists, wizards and muggles AREN'T equal. in the wizarding world, there is no equality.
Wizards aren't beholden to our morality, why should they? Wizards operate on a whole different level than muggles, it just follows they have a different morality.
I feel like I'm listening to the life and lies of albus dumbldore by rita skeeter
The reason so many people hate Dumbledore is because they compare his actions to ideal ones that aren't possible with the situations of the Harry Potter books and movies. In the first movie, Dumbledore said himself that Harry's famed status would make him a target for death eaters. His scar made him easy to recognize among wizards. In the books, being around blood family actually made it more difficult for death eaters to find him. Dumbledore also wasn't just responsible for Harry, but all of Hogwarts and the order of the Phoenix. He often tells information when Harry talks to him. Harry doesn't usually ask adults for help due to not having the best adults in his life growing up. Dumbledore's ability to see things from many angles means he knows which of the available options are the least risky and would have the best outcome. Even then he's not immune to the occasional miscalculation. He is human after all. If you claim he let Sirius Black rot in Azkaban, how would Dumbledore know? Sirius was locked up without a trial or proper investigation and all the known evidence pointed to him. Dumbledore wasn't there to witness the crime and the only evidence that could put Sirius in the clear was stuff that was only known to the Marauders, or strictly between Sirius and Peter.
This seems to be a willful misinterpretation of the Dumbledore character and his role in the books just get clicks.
Unpopular opinion but Lupin should have been expelled. He was a danger and even as a human he was a violent bully to snape and a trouble maker and tbh he deserved his fate for almost killing the guy
excuse me wut
Uhh