House-Elfs and Slavery Again

[ladjables]

No: HPFGUIDX 38118

Hi all,
I unfortunately had to miss the rest of the house-elf
argument.  In discussing the similarity of the
house-elf experience to slavery, I originally omitted
some points.  If these have already been discussed in
my absence, apologies in advance; I seem to be missing
a huge chunk of mail between mid-March and mid-April.

1) Dobby's voice: Dobby's and Winky's speech patterns
in GoF are extremely similar to the Black American
English of the 19th century, if there are any
linguists on the list.  Really, all we need is a "yes,
massa" and we're set.  Dobby's quasi-Gullah dialect is
more notably pronounced in GoF than in CoS.  It's
interesting that in creating a voice for Dobby JKR
would use an idiom wich such strong connotations.  Did
anyone else spot this?  

2)Dumbledore's attitude to Dobby and Winky: I've often
considered Dumbledore the moral compass of the series,
even though he may very well turn out to have some
less than perfect motives regarding Harry.  However,
there can be no doubt he is a progressive thinker in
the Potterverse.  Snape, Lupin, Hagrid and others all
benefit from Dumbledore's willingness to give people a
chance at a new life.  In this sense, I feel quite
confident we can trust him, and we know that
Dumbledore will pay house-elfs, give them holidays and
attire them properly.  He places no restriction on
their freedom of speech.  Dumbledore, as usual, goes
against the normal conventions of the wizarding world.
 He doesn't seem to regard rigid enforcement of
house-elf status as necessary to maintaining stability
in the wizarding world.  That's a sign, to me, that
house-elfs really don't need to be so controlled.

3)House-Elfs are not human:
[Dicentra63 wrote, on the house-elf issue:
<<...the argument from Hagrid et al that "they like
it" might actually be valid in the WW, given that
they're not human and have different psychological
needs.>>

This cogent argument has been put forward before, in
many forms, and excellent examples from the sci-fi
genre were given by talondg and greywolf among others.
 But, this was precisely the sort of argument used to
justify African slavery in the first place.  It was
the prevailing view at the time that blacks were
descended from the gorilla (their prominent simian
facial features were cited as evidence of this link)
and therefore not related to whites (after all,
Darwin's Origin of the Species isn't published till a
quarter century after the aboliton of slavery, and
public acceptance isn't immediate).  Oh, they were
bipeds, viviparous, and capable of speech, but these
characteristics simply confirmed the African was an
advanced ape.  The only thing remarkable about him was
his brute strength.  

So someone came up with the perfectly brilliant,
logical notion that they would make an ideal labour
force because they had the stamina to withstand a
harsh tropical climate, once there were overseers to
supervise them and keep them in line.  They had none
of the needs of a civilized people, so issues of
wages, education and health care were easily dispensed
with.  The morality question disappeared completely. 
So consider the view "they're a different species with
different needs" has in fact been used as an excuse to
perpetrate the most abominable kind of abuse. A
logical argument may be advanced to support any issue,
but that doesn't make it right.

4)Authorial Intent and Canon-Even if our information
on house-elfs is sketchy, we do know JKR finds
prejudice and inequality in general to be
reprehensible; in fact, she has said her feelings on
the subject shaped Harry Potter.  I think therefore it
cannot be ignored. What is the point of creating an
entire species and depriving them of freedom?  Does
this not go against her own beliefs or does this apply
only to humans and not house-elfs?!  Why create such a
complicated species when her books are geared
principally towards children?  What exactly is she
trying to say to 10 year olds in her treatment of
house-elfs?  That some species have to be controlled
for their own good?  That, in the vein of Orwell's
Animal Farm, some are more equal that others?   That's
very iffy, not to mention contradictory to canon.

I can only deduce that she is potraying the house-elfs
in such a way as to highlight that treating someone
that  disrespectfully is morally unacceptable, which
would bring house-elfs under the umbrella theme of
prejudice.  Mutual respect is by no means limited to
human beings.  I treat my dog like a dog, but that
doesn't mean he has to be subdued or intimidated to
the point where he expects and even accepts it.  (Same
goes for being anthropomorphisized.  Dressing him in
trousers and coat-tails and having him sit at the
table is equally heinous and disprespectful, IMO, to
his doggyness.  Of course, if he wanted to sit at my
table, of his own doggy volition, that's another
matter altogether.  Ok, moving on.)

So, following points 3 and 4, I submit that all
species deserve to be treated respectfully, even in
the Potterverse.  And I'm not getting the feeling
house-elfs know respect is a mutual thing.  I cannot
believe JKR would invent creatures like the house-elfs
because she thinks obsequiousness is an admirable
quality.  Hence the existence of Dobby and Winky, who
represent the fall-out of enslavement.  Why bother to
introduce Dobby at all if not to point out that nature
does not dictate character, (giants, werewolves,
seniors, drunks, Snapes anyone?) that we must be able
to choose the life we lead?  And without choice, our
most basic rights are impaired: we lack free will.  

Dobby is our freedom-fighter; he embodies the most
admirable traits one can develop when subjected to a
situation that is infra dig.  He chooses not to accept
his position.  On the other hand, Winky is our classic
victim of menticide, that most debilitating and
persistent malady slavery transmits.  She has accepted
her position.  The idea that freedom is always
desirable in the real world is simplistic and
deceptive.  The mark of the truly oppressed is that
freedom is an alien notion.  Winky has been freed, but
until she can wrap her mind around the concept, she
may as well be working for Barty Crouch.  

The idea that house-elfs should be dependent by nature
does not seem to mesh with JKR's publicly voiced
objectives in writing Harry Potter.  I'm not
discounting the possibility that they may have a
symbiotic relationship with wizards, or that their
powerful magic may have been used for evil in the past
and needed to be regulated.  Perhaps their present
condition wasn't imposed, perhaps they agreed to a
form of indentureship.  But I simply don't see where
JKR, ostensibly a writer of children's literature,
could be going with the notion that a controlled
species is acceptable in light of her comments on
oppression and intolerance.  Join me for a glass of
wine at Madam DeFarge's if you agree. 

Ama, who'll be wearing her sabots, H.E.L.F. T-shirt
and beret, and terrifying the patrons in general with
her sudden outbursts on revolution.









__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/