Elves, goblins, etc., was Re: Mudbloods

[Philip Nel]

No: HPFGUIDX 30553

Dear all,

Amanda Lewanski mentions that there "was a spirited debate a while back, on whether the house-elves" are satisfied with their status.  So, first of all, sorry for venturing into well-traveled territory.  And, second, for any who do not wish to revisit said territory, please skip the rest of this paragraph.  Amanda asks, "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?"  The answer to the second question is yes: Rowling is satirizing Hermione's zeal.  She's making fun of people who, though they mean well, do not understand those whom they wish to help.  The answer to the first question is not as clear.  Hermione
suggests that the elves have been brainwashed.  Inasmuch as Rowling does show prejudice as a learned condition, I'm willing to believe that the house-elves have absorbed the notion that enslavement is their lot in life.  In other words, their sense of inferiority is learned, too.  On the other hand, Rowling does not make apparent the processes by which the house-elves come to
think as they do; if they have learned this sense of inferiority, she never shows us.  So, while I'm inclined to argue that they've learned to think of themselves as lesser beings, I don't think I can make as convincing a case as I would like to.

> >  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 they 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.

Like Amanda's husband, I, too, suspect that the goblins -- and the house-elves -- will play crucial roles in future books.  As to what the goblins are rebelling against, I was inferring that goblins are permitted to work only in certain areas of the wizarding world.  That is, they seem to be relegated to particular professions -- money-lending, primarily.  I'm not an expert on
the history of Jews in Europe, but there seems to be a parallel between the goblins' status and the status of Jews in Europe during certain periods of history (I'm inclined to say the 17th and 18th centuries, but I could well be wrong).  So, I would imagine that the goblins have legitimate reasons to rebel against their liminal status.

> 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.

I am using the term obsession to refer to a persistent fixation.  It is true that that not all characters who discuss heritage manifest an obsession with such issues.  Nonetheless, most people's interest in heritage or lineage remains invisible, unseen most of the time.  Malfoy displays his racism and classism openly, but Ron's beliefs about giants only emerge publicly during
the scene I mentioned earlier.

> 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.

By definition, a prejudice is not justified.  The word means to judge beforehand, to judge without knowledge.

Best regards,

Phil Nel
--
Philip Nel
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Denison Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-0701
U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/
philnel at ksu.edu