On the other hand (was Re: Disliked Uncle Vernon)

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 93145

Another of those responses trying to cover multiple posts on the same 
thread. Long and only moderately satisfactory - fitting things in 
between spasms of work is not the best way of tackling these things.

Susan:
 >So why didn't they just say, "No way,  Jose?" >Whose moral code to 
abide by would not even have >been an issue in that, would it?

Kneasy:
That assumes a choice was offered. We just don't know. But I suspect 
the worst.

 >> "Morality is a private and costly luxury" -  >> Henry Brooks Adams

 >> "You can't learn too soon that the most useful >> thing about a 
principle is that it can always >> be sacrificed to expediency."
 >> W. Somerset Maugham

 > Susan:
 > I just flat-out disagree with these, as        > absolute statements. 
You love being a cynic; I > find it goes against my nature more times 
than
 > not.

Kneasy:
I'm not surprised; what you're stating is your own moral code -  which 
is partly the point I was making - morals are the result of the 
development of a *personal* choice. There may  be pressures from 
society as a whole to conform to certain mores, but unless actual 
legislation is enacted then morality and it's close relative ethics, 
remains a strictly private matter.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and that is what we're indulging in, 
castigating the Dursleys for moral turpitude, forgetting that they 
didn't make their decision (if they were allowed a decision), on the 
basis of moral arguments; their decision was purely emotional - fear, 
hatred, all the sort of stuff that crashed down on them when they found 
the bundle and letter on the doorstep.

The Dursleys are remarkably unchanging in the views they hold. They 
don't like the WW, they don't like the Potters, they don't like Harry.
It is an entirely personal choice; there is no law or even social norm 
that forces anyone to like everybody. You may disagree with their 
choice, but that does not allow us to demand that they change it. Some 
may say that it is reasonable for  us to  demand that they change their 
*behaviour*, but really, what have they actually done? Have they beaten 
Harry? Starved him? (Undersized does not automatically equate to  
starvation; the only time a diet of that sort arrives they're all on 
it, including Petunia - who doesn't seem to  have flesh to spare 
either.)
And  sleeping under the stairs? If it didn't bother DD (the letter from 
Hogwarts knew exactly where he slept) why should we get agitated about 
it?

You can bet your boots that the treatment Harry received would pass 
muster  with Social Services, they'd make very sure of that.


 > Tcy:
 > I'm not sure about Puppetmaster!Dumbledore -   > but I have to agree 
with  Kneasy (groan) on    > this point. I find it very difficult to 
believe
 > that Albus didn't know what he was setting     > Harry up for. He may 
have underestimated some  > of the specifics - but I'll bet just about
 > anything that he knew what he was doing.

Kneasy:
Take heart! It'll probably be the last time you agree with me this 
year. But  it is nice to get some support.



 > Tcy:
 > How can we judge the Dursley's decision to take > Harry if we don't 
know the circumstances under > which they made this decision? Judge 
away on   > how they have treated Harry - but until we know > what that 
letter from Dumbledore contained, it > seems silly to say that they 
should have just  > passed on the offer. Perhaps there was no      > 
offer.
 > Perhaps it was an ultimatum.

Kneasy:
Or as near as makes no difference. DD dumps Harry  then wanders off 
into  the night thinking pure thoughts - maybe. Lovely way to find out 
that your sister has died, even if you didn't like her. DD -  so 
thoughtful, so caring, so sympathetic.

But we do really need to know what was said in that letter.


 > Pippin:
 > Now, now. Dumbledore never Fudges about the    > treatment Harry is 
going to receive. He only   > says it's the best place for him.
 > Meaning, of course, that it's the *only* place > for him. The Death 
Eaters go up and down the   > earth and to and fro upon it, and not 
even     > Dumbledore can hinder them from doing so. They > have 
penetrated Gringotts, the Ministry,       > Hogwarts and Saint Mungo's.

 > Where else would Harry have been safe? With    > Dumbledore?
 > Hardly--even with a wand to defend himself,    > Harry has just 
barely survived his five years  > at school. Dumbledore has managed to 
rescue him       > only with surprise on his side.


Kneasy:
Odd that. There's no evidence that the DEs were looking for him. Why 
would they want to? They went after the Longbottoms for information. 
Harry would be no good there, what could a 15 month old child tell 
them? Even when Harry comes out and starts at Hogwarts, strangely 
enough the DEs leave him alone - it's between Harry and Voldy, the rest 
don't seem to interfere except when Harry steps directly on their toes.

Sure, DD  came to the rescue with Crouch!Moody,  though I wonder  just 
how successful C!M  would have been in disposing of Harry - nobody else 
had even got close up to that point. Even at the Ministry Bella seems 
remarkably reluctant to use an AK on Harry, that privilege is reserved 
for Voldy.

IMO the idea that DEs were scouring the countryside looking for Potter 
Jnr. doesn't hold water. Rather it looks as if DD has parked Harry 
somewhere quiet until he is old enough for Hogwarts. A piece of left 
luggage, almost. "Leave him there, I'll pick him up when I'm ready" 
sort of thing. Heart-warming, isn't it?


Alla:
 > Actually, no scratch that. :o) As long as they > do not act on  their 
"moral standards", I would > let them be, but as soon as they start 
hurting > other people (Harry in this situation), I have > no problem 
forcing the general norms of        > behaviour (like abuse is not 
allowed)on them.  > After all, we don't allow people, who feel it  > is 
OK to commit a crime a free ride.


Kneasy:
What crime? There is  no evidence that they have committed one. They 
are unpleasant, yes, but that is not criminal. No beatings, not even 
threats of beatings, hand-me-down clothes, a sparse but apparently 
healthy diet, bed under the stairs - so what? No criminal activity 
there. Bullying from Dudders perhaps? Show me a similar pairing of boys 
that don't react to each other that way on occasion. It's endemic 
behaviour in boys.
Psychological damage? Is there any evidence that it has been inflicted? 
I can't see any.


 > Carolyn:
 > DD's a pretty cold fish, and the WW is a rough > place at the best of 
times, with people hexing > each other at the slightest provocation
 > (look at the queues at St Mungo's on Christmas > Day, or the way the 
kids hex Malfoy & co on the > train - no one acts particularly 
surprised or  > calls in the aurors or hit-wizards). I am not  > sure 
he would be bothered that Dudders might   > beat up Harry - Harry's 
magical after all, and > can't really be harmed.

 > The psychological damage to Harry of being     > unloved is another 
matter, but I don't think DD > would have given it great weight. By the 
end of
 > OOP he maybe has begun to have more of an      > insight here, 
because of his own care for Harry > which has grown up since the boy 
arrived at    > Hogwarts, but I personally was pretty unmoved  > by his 
tears when he talked to Harry after     > Sirius's death. They struck 
me as more self-   > pitying than produced by Harry's suffering.

Kneasy:
I agree with practically all the points you make. The WW seems a 
pleasantly robust world, in a way much healthier in their attitudes 
than we are. No whining that everybody must love them or they might end 
up damaged, no ridiculous ethic that everybody must be nice to 
everybody else  all the time,  no insistence on happy-clappy classes  
where everybody must share in each others successes, where everybody 
must have prizes. Quite old-fashioned, in  fact. Very similar to my own 
schooldays. A lesson best learnt early -  life is not fair and never 
will be, no matter what the social and educational professionals  say.

Self pitying DD is one way of putting it, another is manipulation. And 
that's the one I'll  plump for.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]