A commentaire made on my précédant article about Lily Evans motivated me to write this one. I will try to explain why I think most Slytherins, as portrayed in the books, shouldn't be considered 'good', but 'not bad' at best. When I say 'most Slytherins', I mean everyone Harry dedicated a few thoughts to except for Andromeda who remains unknown.
Salazar Slytherin's favourite students were the ambitious and cunning ones, preferably purebloods. While none of those traits are negative, the house still managed to produce plus dark wizards than any other. Voldemort is Slytherin's descendant and most of his followers are also Slytherins (funnily, though, it was a Gryffindor who brought him back). All the villians are Slytherins (at least on first sight) and they're either murderers, bullies ou nasty at best. They mostly support Voldemort and agree with his views. This has been repeated over and over. I didn't have their political vues in mind when I stated they were 'not bad' at best. Slytherins are not bad at best because they're egocentric and because they have no class.
I'll start with Snape, a Death Eater who turned out to be good in the end. In my opinion he changed sides because of Lily, not because he realised pureblood supremacist vues were wrong. He liked being a Death Eater because he was in power and he was respected. He changed his mind when the woman he loved became a target. If Lily and James left the country and were never heard of again. I doubt he'd change sides. How does that make him any better than any other Death Eater? Basically the same thing happened to the Malfoys, yet nobody says they're good. Secondly, he was awful to Harry, Neville and Hermione throughout the series. He knew how terrible childhood Harry had and he still treated him so badly. An 11-year-old. Why? Because he was immature and couldn't let go of his hatred for James. Harry was disgusted when he saw how James treated Snape. He didn't deserve such unfair treatment from Snape. Snape also made fun of Neville even though he knew what happened to his parents (partly thanks to him). He was mean and inconsiderate. He also made fun of Hermione's looks. A little girl's looks. And he's her teacher. If toi were the teacher would toi be that mean to similar students (two boys who Lost their parents and a not so pretty girl)? In my opinion Snape wasn't good, nor brave. He was just in l’amour with Lily and felt bad because of what happened to her thanks to him.
Moving on to Lucius. His political vues aside, he didn't hurt the children in the DoM and he tried to keep things calm, he also didn't call Hermione a 'mudblood', but he was so mean to the Weasley kids for no reason whenever he encountered them. Back in CoS,Lucius was furious because of the raids and he decided to have his revenge on Arthur. How? par using his daughter. An 11-year-old child. A low kick in my opinion, especially since he's a father himself. Can anybody imagine Arthur (or even Sirius for that matter) using Draco to get to Lucius? I don't think so. Lucius could've simply bribed/put under the Imperius curse truquer, fudge to feu Arthur. Playing dirty is one thing, playing dirty par using someone's child is disgusting.
Narcissa. She turned out to be relatively okay because she turned against Voldemort and lied to help Harry. Relatively okay. Her little speech about Sirius' death in HBP to Harry was really nasty. She showed she had no class. If Lucius was killed par an auror in a battle can anybody imagine Molly saying those things to Draco at Madam Malkin's. No. And Molly is far from a Malfoy-lover. Not to mention Sirius was her cousin, no matter what she thought of him.
Draco was nasty from the start. There's very little to say about him. From making fun of Harry and Ron's parents to calling Hermione 'a mudblood'. He showed he had no class. Basically the same goes for Pansy.
Regulus is mix between Draco and Snape. We know very little about him, but we do know one important thing: he decided to desert Voldemort partly because Voldemort threatened to kill his house-elf. It's just amazing how apparently an elf's life is plus important than a muggleborn's life in his eyes. Snape changed sides because of Lily, Regulus because of Kreacher. Neither man really changed his vues in my opinion.
Horace Slughorn at least didn't want to rejoindre the Death Eaters. However, this man knew why Voldemort lived and he a dit nothing.Why? Because he couldn't face the consequences of what he did. He didn't want to say anything because it would montrer him in bad light, teaching students dark arts and all. It didn't matter to him that innocent people were getting killed. Harry had to take Felix Felicis potion to get anything out of him. If it wasn't for the potion,they'd never find out how many horcruxes there were. While Slughorn was plus good than bad, he showed he was a coward. There's nothing wrong with being emarrassed of what toi did ou being afraid of what people might think (he had good intetions when he told Tom Riddle about the horcruxes), but people were in danger and he didn't want to share the information he had. He could've confided in Dumbledore, he wouldn't be sent to Azkaban for what he did. Yet his reputation was plus important to him.
I won't commentaire on Bellatrix as she was clearly affected par Azkaban. We don't know what she was like during the First War.
To conclude, the people I mentioned were all Slytherins. A few of them were even helpful and Harry named his son in honour of one of them. But while they did some good, they weren't what toi would normally call 'good people'. They were nasty and egocentric, sometimes cowardly and often showed they had no class. They were worse than members of other houses. That said, my favourite characters are still Slytherins (Narcissa and Slughorn). Frankly, I wish we found out plus about Andromeda.