Elves, goblins, etc., was Re: Mudbloods

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 30551

Philip Nel wrote:

> The social structure of the wizarding world depends upon labor
> provided by house-elves who, clearly, do not have the same degree of
> rights that wizards have.

There was a spirited debate a while back, on whether the house-elves
*want* this. If someone firmly and repeatedly seeks a certain role and
is happy in it, and alteration of their role causes them grief, is that
alteration doing any good to the recipient? Not to mention the upheaval
in the house-elves' psyche--they offer no support to Winky, they
disapprove of Dobby's arrangement, and they'd much rather nobody
discusses it. What if it is in the nature of the house-elves to prefer
the situation the way it is? Is Hermione attempting to impose her
morality upon a totally different society with different values?

>  And what of the status of goblins?  I don't think that their role in
> the wizarding society has been as clearly defined as the house-elves'
> role has been, but we do hear of the goblin rebellions, and we know
> that goblins seem relegated exclusively to jobs dealing with money.
> The goblins are money-lenders: they run the bank, and the loan money
> to Ludo Bagman.

Aha. My husband has a theory that the goblins will be key in some major
action in future books. We've heard about goblin rebellions and wars so
much that it's become background noise, the stuff of sleepy history
classes. We have been led to believe they are harmless now. But the
goblins have a long history of conflict--what, exactly, were they
*rebelling* against? Clearly they can be dangerous. And there is one,
count 'em, *one* wizarding bank run by these beings. They seem as amoral
as Swiss bankers, in that they carried out a transaction for Sirius
Black when he was the most wanted wizard in the world. What would happen
if Voldemort managed to win over the goblins? And controlled all the
money in the wizarding world? My husband thinks Voldemort will, indeed,
get the goblins as allies, but will underestimate them and they'll turn
on him.

Probably not, though--economics is terribly effective in the real world
but not a zinger of a way to defeat a Dark Lord.

> On the other hand, asking *why* certain characters are obsessed about
> heritage allows us to think critically about the cultural beliefs of
> the wizarding world.

You must define "obsession." Ron, especially, serves as the voice of the
wizarding world to Harry, and many of his prejudices are, as you noted,
learned and are discarded when proven inaccurate. Not all of the
characters who discuss lineage and heritage are obsessed by it.

And a question--when a prejudice is valid, is it still prejudice? I can
completely understand the parents withdrawing their children if Lupin
remained at Hogwarts; he represents a real danger. If I don't want my
child exposed to a werewolf, am I prejudiced? Does motive count? I.e.,
am I prejudiced if I don't want him exposed because Werewolves Are Evil,
and am I not prejudiced if I don't want him exposed because it's
dangerous? My point here is that "prejudice" is becoming a knee-jerk Bad
Term, and I think it is another of the blanket generalities that JKR
shows us the greys in.

--Amanda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]