Serpents and Parseltongue

[Grey Wolf]

No: HPFGUIDX 46905

Sarah wrote:
> I recently started re-reading GoF, and it is glaringly obvious not 
> only how much prejudice and bigotry there is in the wizarding world, 
> but how completely accepted it seems to be. Almost every non-human 
> race is put on a lower status than humans - non humans not being 
> allowed to use wands, giants being so universally hated that even 
> Maxime doesn't want to admit to herself that she is half-giant, many 
> apparently sentient races being legally defined as magical 
> *creatures*.

There is indeed much prejudice and bigotry in the WW, but nonetheless 
your examples are wrong. There are indeed non-human races that are 
equal to wizards. Goblins are the perfect example. In fact, goblins are 
powerful indeed, since they control wizard economy through Gringotts. 
Giants are not directly discussed, but may fall within the cathegory of 
beings that were put in the beast cathegory for being unable to control 
their own brutal natures (like manticores and acromantulas). I agree 
with such clasification: no matter how intelligcent a creature might 
be, if it's a danger to all around him due to lack of self-control, it 
is a beast. 

Grouping half-creatures with their non-human parents *is*, however, an 
error. From the examples so far, it seems that half-giants have no 
problem controlling their natures and thus they should be offered a 
place in the beings, since they have shown the capacity to understand 
and follow laws.

The wand issue is something of a mistery. Elves in particular we know 
are not allowed to use wands, but it is beside the point, since they're 
so very more powerful than humans anyway that they don't seem to need 
it (for example, they are able to apparate within Hogwarts, which no 
human can). Hagrid, when speaking of his giant heritage seems to imply 
that Giants can't do magic, so wands would be useless to them. This 
definetely aplies to mermaids, who were extremelly afraid of Harry's 
wand, and possibly to centaurs as well. And most other creatures don't 
have *hands* to use the wands with, so it's useless to them too.

Finally, we have centaurs and mermaids. Both were given a seat as 
beings in the conferences, but both have rejected it, so they are 
classifid as beasts until they decide to change that. They did that 
because they wanted to be independent from humans. And they are free to 
do so, IMO (although your reasoning seems to go the other way: they 
should be beings because you ant them to, if I've read you correctly).

> The house elves are a case in point - sentient, intelligent creatures 
> who are legally enslaved. In my opinion, whether some of them like it 
> or not (as with Hogwarts house elves) is a moot point - as the system 
> itself makes no allowances whatsoever for house elves who are 
> mistreated (Dobby and Winkie, for example). It is pure luck whether 
> or not a house elf ends up with a decent employer, or someone who 
> likes to torture him or her for fun. Hogwarts, which is otherwise 
> depicted as one of the strongest refuges against evil, is totally 
> complicit in this, and otherwise decent people (such as Percy 
> Weasley) think it is reasonable to expect total obedience from a 
> house elf.

I agree that there should be laws that would protect house elves from 
abuse, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. As many other people 
that have raised the issue of elf rights, you are trying to impose your 
own views of morality and what they "need" on them. I assume (although 
you haven't stated it as such) that you agree with Hermione's campaign. 
I am totally against it: I feel it's wrong and that it won't help the 
elves at all. But since you haven't actually stated that opinion, I'll 
refrain from comenting.

You have raised the issue that Hogwarts is wrong at using elves, and 
that Percy is likewise wrong at expecting total obedience. Let's tackle 
them. Percy was right at expecting such thing since elves take pride in 
being faithful to their masters. The problem with Winky is that she was 
sacrified in the altar of politics (i.e. she had been obedient but her 
master was going to acuse her of his own errors). If Percy had the one 
been sacked for obeying, he would have felt much like Winky did. To 
resume, yes, it is not unreasonable to expect total obedience from an 
elf, as long as the commands you give them are within the capabilities 
of the elf itself, since that's the way they are - it's in their 
nature. There are exceptions, maybe, but in general what pleases an elf 
is to be able to serve (the moral teachings of Christ run in the same 
direction: he who desires to be the first should be the lowest of them 
all, etc.).

Now, Hogwarts employs elves. Those elves are given uniforms and they 
are given freedom to work or not. And all the elves chose to work, 
preparing food and cleaning their home. And yet you -and Hermione- feel 
that this is wrong. You'll have to expand that argument a little bit 
more, though, since I see nothing wrong with the elves' situation at 
Hogwarts.

> On an even more sinister note, from what I can gather the 
> Unforgivable Curses may not be performed on humans - but I don't 
> recall any ban  on performing them on non-humans. A house elf (or 
> goblin, or giant, or any one of a whole list of sentient beings who 
> aren't human) annoys you, and you wave your wand and yell "Crucio"? 
> To me, it is very disturbing if that is acceptable (or legal) 
> behaviour . . .

Again, you are misreading the situation (or at least reading it 
diferently of how I read it). Unforgivables are spells that, if used on 
a human being, carry a life sentence in Azkaban. This means that, if 
you use an unforgivable, you are sent to Azkban without trial or chance 
to defend yourself (or maybe that, if guilty, the minimun sentence is 
life imprisonment). It says nothing more - anything you wish to read is 
open to interpretation. The way I read it, if you use an unforgivable 
in any other creature, you are trialed and given a chance to explain 
yourself, but that's it. You might still wind up in Azkaban with a life 
sentance if you cannot justify yourself.

> Also, from Voldemort's point of view: he clearly derives much (all?) 
> of his self-esteem from his magical abilities. If he looks around the 
> supposedly nice and fair wizard world, and finds that the "good guys" 
> will happily do whatever they like to anyone who isn't human, then it 
> is not much of a leap for him to reduce the people he values to 
> wizards . . . then pure-blood wizards. If you can do what you like to 
> a magical house elf, why not do what you like to a non-magical 
> muggle, as well?

I have to point out that Voldemort was better than the MoM in that 
respect: he gave the giants the oportunity to fight against the system, 
and will do the same again, a well as tending a hand to Dementors. He 
may be planning to destroy both races later, but there is no reason for 
it: Voldemort sees beyond the forms to the darkness beneath, and is 
willing to have allies that think like he does. That is good from a 
certain point of view.

> And GW continued:
> 
> >I think we can discount that one, except from a legal point of view:
> >both mermaids and centaurs are technically animals, and you can
> >speak to both, and at least the mermaids have their own language,
> >which you can learn to speak, since Dumbledore knows it. Also,
> >Fantastical Beasts tells us that other magical species have their
> >own language (fairies spring to mind).
> 
> Ties in with what I was saying above - mermaids, centaurs, and 
> fairies all seem sentient and have a language (centaurs in particular 
> seem to have a sense of morality) - but they are classed as 
> "animals".
>
> ~Say

Wrong again, I fear. As I said before, wizards were willing to classify 
both centaurs and mermaids as beings, but both species decided against 
it and decided to be considered beasts. You cannot acuse the WW of 
unfairness for that.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf