Harry as Kreacher was Re: Snape at school was Should Harry have told on DJU

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 100589

> Pippin:
> Hmmm. Fighting for the good? Good and evil are muddy even 
> from our perspective, let alone the characters'.  I think few of 
> them  would be so arrogant as to claim so much  on their own 
> behalf. And some that would, Fudge and Umbridge, for example, 
> would be wrong. From their own perspective,  the  characters 
> can only know whether  they are fighting for the  right as they see 
> it. 

Annemehr:
Well, yes, that's pretty much all anyone can do. I'm not forgetting
that Molly and Sirius argued furiously about how much to tell Harry,
and they both believed they knew what was best for him. And Fighting
For Good doesn't have to mean anything grand and great; just trying to
live a decent life and fulfill your obligations responsibly will do.
It has nothing to do with arrogance.

Pippin:
> Some, such  as Regulus, the giants, and possibly the 
> goblins, if what Lupin predicts comes true, have seen right on 
> Voldemort's side.  Leaving Voldemort, then, entails not only 
> turning against Voldemort's evil, but betraying those of your 
> friends who still believe in him. And let's not forget how 
> convincing he can be. He's got the Malfoys and their sort 
> believing he'll put purebloods on top while at the same time he's 
> convincing the goblins and giants that he's fighting to secure 
> their freedoms. Our Voldy's a talented bloke, and none, so far, 
> have been  wise enough to see through all his deceptions.

Annemehr:
Are you saying the Malfoys sat down and considered which was the right
way to go, and acted according to their best idea of "good?" Because I
was always sure their pureblood ideology was simply a reactionary one,
which they rationalise after the fact.

I don't equate oppressed giants with the Malfoys any more than I
equate Harry with Kreacher. Still, I have no idea what the giants know
about Voldemort, but apparently (according to "Hagrid's Tale") they do
have knowledge of Dumbledore and his ways. We did see a difference
among the giants -- the first gurg was willing to listen to
Dumbledore's envoys until killed by his successor who chose the side
of Voldemort. I think there's enough to the story to at least suggest
that the giants might be able to make a moral choice between the two
sides.

If anyone leaves Voldemort because they come to realise he is evil, I
don't see that as a betrayal of their friends who still believe in
him. If they are truly friends, though, then perhaps the defector
would try to persuade them, too.

Pippin:
> Was Mrs. Black evil? It seems to be totally missed that she was 
> not a Voldemort supporter to the end. "They got cold feet when 
> they saw what [Voldemort] was prepared to do to get power. But I 
> bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining 
> up *at first.* " --OOP ch 6. (emphasis mine)
> 
> Voldemort murdered Regulus, Mrs. Black's much better son, and 
> everybody treats it like it couldn't have possibly mattered to her. 
> Sheesh! Then Sirius goes to Azkaban as a Death Eater--no 
> wonder she was heart-broken! Does everyone think having the 
> wrong idea about Muggles and House Elves exiles you from 
> humanity?

Annemehr:
Partly, it depends on what "got cold feet" meant. Did it only mean
that they perceived that LV was going to lead them into chaos, and
threaten *their own* way of life? Or did it mean that LV was prepared
to do things to *others* that even they recognised as evil?

Pippin:
> To me,  I'm afraid that it's not that simple. We teach our children 
> in school that racism is bad. In our culture it's a given.  But no 
> one has ever been taught at Hogwarts that Muggles are the 
> equals of wizards, or that House Elves should not be slaves. 
> 
> Consider the real world  of the eighteenth century.  A 
> good many people whose ringing words about human freedom 
> are enshrined in the founding documents of my society and 
> fondly quoted to this day, held slaves and would not have 
> considered me, a woman and a Jew, their social equal. Yet I 
> have rights  today because they were willing to risk their lives for 
> their imperfectly imagined concept of human dignity.
> 
> Pippin

Annemehr:
I think that I don't see conscience as quite so relative as I'm
getting from your words (I put that awkwardly, but I don't want to put
words in your mouth in case I misunderstood). I think that those who
seriously think about it can indeed come to understand the difference
between good and evil, though not in a perfect way.  Take your real
life example: the founders did indeed make the effort to advance human
dignity. Even though the effort was very incomplete, it laid the
foundation that we are building on. But they accomplished what they
did precisely because they made the effort to advance the good, not to
acquire power for themselves.

A person who accepts slavery in a society that has always accepted
slavery is one thing. Once people arise who speak up against slavery,
who begin to point out the injustices, it becomes a new situation.
Though old mental habits die hard, an honest person will have to begin
to consider the other side. In VWI, the two sides were very clear and
apparent to anyone who wanted to consider their merits. VWII is now
going the same way: Fudge has seen that he was mistaken. It's what
Fudge decides to do *now* that will really show us his true colors.

Perhaps the main difference between Harry and Kreacher is that Harry
appears to have a much greater capacity to consider and decide between
right and wrong than Kreacher, who may be both insane and magically
bound (and to what extent we have no way of knowing). I just didn't
like what appeared to me to be a superficial comparison between the
two. And finally, I don't fault Kreacher for his loyalty to Mrs.
Black, or to Narcissa either.

Annemehr