Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 1)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 39133

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Leon Adato" <adatole at y...> wrote:
<snip>
> Supporting ladjables comments, I 
> would like to point out that:
> 
> NO other race, no matter how "different" (unhuman) they are, speaks 
> in the same way as Dobby/Winky. Not even Aragog, who speaks in > 
broken but still
> english but using correct verb tenses. The centaurs, who hold 
themselves
> apart from Humanit, speak perfect English. Already mentioned are 
the
> Goblins. Dwarves (as seen delivering valentines) too. I'm not sure 
if what
> we hear from snakes is valid, since it is filtered through Harry's
> parseltongue.
> 
> But a key point to realize is that no other race is shown speaking 
> in pidgin language, whether as a characterization (parseltongue) or 
> literally. JKR did not make this choice lightly.

I agree with you and with ladjables that pidgin marks servility. 
However, there is no question that the house elves are in a position 
of servitude that is unique to them. Possibly JKR is using this 
characterization to signal the metaphor of slavery. Maybe not, 
though. You think that JKR made this choice consciously. How many of 
her target audience does she think will get the message? How many of 
the children reading the books are familiar with the term 
"pidgin"? Let alone connecting the pidgin with slavery. 

JKR has already addressed the socio-political issue of racism, 
prejudice and intolerance. When she did, there was no ambiguity about 
it at all. "Mudbloods" does not exactly lend itself to many 
interpretations, does it? It's obviously a racial slur. So, why would 
she, when addressing a very similar issue (as you claim), take such a 
different path? Why use hints and subtle allusions rather than the 
forthright attitude she demonstrated before? 

One possible answer is, because "house-elfement" IS ambigous. Not 
that it is merely treated this way, but that it actually is so. 

> 
> Naamagagus continues:
> ******************
> But that is a different moral issue, what is the proper way to 
> treat a species that IS non-human and that has an innate need to > 
> serve humans?
> ******************
> 
> Again, what other race does this? Even the Goblins, with whom the 
wizards have warred in the past, fill a role in society that appears 
to contain elements of freedom of choice, movement, etc (ie: the 
banking system). The Weasley's don't enslave the ghoul in the attic. 
While they are perhaps rude to the gnomes in the garden, they don't 
try to put them to work only to remove them as a nuisance. Name me 
one other race that appears on a lower rung of society! One > other 
race that is servile to another race!
<snip> 
> So I would argue that, based on the evidence provided within the 
books themselves, the status of the HouseElf is inconsistant with the 
rest of the HP world and begging to be addressed. If you then layer 
on all the information ladjables has presented, you have what I 
believe to be a clear message from JKR about the "right"ness or 
"wrong"ness of this entire subject.
> 

The house elves are probably too efficient to make necessary the 
enslavement of another species. <g> 

Seriously, though, isn't one servile species enough? All the other 
species are portrayed as inherently different from humans. Both in 
regard to physical appearance, magical abilities and other innate 
tendencies. I don't see why it is inconsistent with the HP world to 
posit one magical species that has the unique innate tendency to 
serve humans. I'm not saying it's not problematic, mind. But I don't 
think there is any inconsistency involved. 


Naama