[HPforGrownups] House-Elfs and Slavery Again

[Amanda]

No: HPFGUIDX 38149

Ama wrote a very long post, some of which I snipped. Relevant comments were
retained.

> 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?

Actually, it reminded me of a creole. It seems entirely likely to me that
house-elves have their own language, and speak a creole when addressing
humans. And the similarity to Black English is understandable--it also has
creole roots. I didn't think JKR was trying to make any kind of point with
their speech, other than to pick a logical format that would make it sound
foreign.

> 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.

I don't get the feeling that the wizards *are* actively controlling them, at
least not usually. The elves themselves, by their attitudes, bind
themselves. And it may be there are magical benefits or contracts involving
their status that we do not know about.

I will propose again that the elves are not so much bound to a family or a
human as to a place, and the bond is extended to the human that owns the
place. Winky may be as much an extreme as Dobby, in her refusal to accept
her dismissal and her attachment to her former *people*, refusing to become
bonded with her new *place.* She is the other end of the spectrum; neither
is representative.

> But, this was precisely the sort of argument used to
> justify African slavery in the first place.

This is irrelevant. Just because the "they're not human" argument was used
to justify slavery, in an instance where it turned out to be untrue, doesn't
mean that it's *not* true in the case of house-elves. They are another
species. There is no reason to assume their psychological needs are the same
as a human's.

  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).

Point of logic. If the Origin of the Species and evolutionary theory was not
published until after the abolition of slavery (in America, be specific), it
could hardly have been the prevailing view that blacks were descended from
the gorilla. It would never have occurred to anyone. They were regarded as
an inferior race, but the "descended from" is not an accurate portrayal of
the attitude of the time.

> 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.

No, they were cheap, easily available, and more resistant to European
diseases than the Indians, who kept dying in droves.

Also, don't forget that the white, mostly Christian slave-transporters were
dealing with canny mostly Islamic black slave-dealers in Africa. The latter
presumably knew perfectly well that their merchandise was fully human, and
still chose to deal in it. So you can't generalize slavery's origins to a
belief that blacks were subhuman, even if a large portion of the end market
did believe this.

> 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.

Granted. But again, the fact that it was wrong in this case does not mean in
any way that for house-elves, this is not an accurate statement.

> 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.

So how, if the elves really want to keep the status quo, is forcing them
into a situation wherein they are uncomfortable and unhappy, respecting
them? At some point you have to trust the other party to tell you the truth,
and if they like their box, leave them in it. I rather thought JKR is,
probably among other things, showing that diversity is real and not everyone
does want or need the same things.

> So, following points 3 and 4, I submit that all
> species deserve to be treated respectfully, even in
> the Potterverse.

As long as you get to define respect and get to feel good about it, even if
the recipient doesn't like it?

> 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.

But you seem to want to deny the elves the right to choose to remain just
where they are in the relationship they are in. What if they are saying no
more than the truth and they really do prefer the arrangement as it is? At
what point do you insist that you know better than they do what is good for
them? Sometimes you're right; sometimes you're not.

What if you ultimately end up with a batch of elves, whose nature inclines
them to servitude, and brainwash them to believe they like freedom? That is
as morally wrong as the reverse, brainwashing them out of free will to like
their servitude. When do you start letting another being make its own
decisions, and when do you insist on interfering for its own good? I think
it is this very conundrum that JKR is seeking to illustrate, more than
anything else.

> 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.

Wrong. He was freed, according to the tenets of the binding (as we
understand them). He went looking for employment, which is again what elves
do, they serve. He is serving now, and would be unhappy if he weren't. He
has departed from the norm only in demanding payment, and he didn't want
very much payment at that. But he did not choose to accept his position at
the Malfoys; he *did* accept it, until Harry schemed his freedom.

Nor is Dobby rabble-rousing in the kitchens. He is leaving his fellow elves
to walk their own paths--respecting their choices, which Hermione does not.
I can't see him cast as a freedom-fighter.

> Winky has been freed, but
> until she can wrap her mind around the concept, she
> may as well be working for Barty Crouch.

Now, Winky, I think, is as aberrant an elf as Dobby. I personally think
elves are bound to a place, and loyalty to a particular human is not
supposed to supercede that. Winky had such a close relationship with Crouch
Jr., for such a long time, with such responsibility specifically for him,
that she cannot accept her freedom---not from her place, but from Crouch and
his son. She is not bemoaning her freedom because it is not slavery--she is
bemoaning her freedom because it separates her from the *people she wants to
serve. She has departed from the house-elf norm so significantly in this,
that she can't allow herself to be bound to a new place and new people.
Winky doesn't want servitude, so much as she wants to be able to care for
"her" people.

> 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.

What makes you think they are dependent?

> 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.

Ah, but JKR is NOT a writer of children's literature. She is a writer of
literature. That it has been marketed primarily to children is neither her
fault nor her particular preference. Nor do I believe that the complexity of
themes she presents are at all inappropriate for young minds. The earlier
you learn to accept that unfairness exists, and deal in shades of grey, and
function anyway, the better.

--Amanda, very wordy tonight