The Dursleys *are* guilty (was : On the other hand )

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 93319

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" 
<hickengruendler at y...> wrote:

<snip>
> Dumbledore is responsible for Harry's upbringing, because he is the 
one who gave Harry to the 
> Dursleys. It was his decision, and others have to take the 
> consequences, especially Harry. Dumbledore is the one who brought 
him in that situation (except Voldemort, of course), therefore he 
>should at least help him a bit.  
>


The thing is, the Dursleys don't love Harry. Their treatment of him 
is a clear expression of that. They don't abuse him in the physical 
sense (well, much) - they don't hit him or starve him. And he's *not* 
locked in the cupboard under the stairs - he sleeps there. Except for 
a few times, he is free to come and go, around the house, to school  
and outside. The deprivation he suffers from is emotional - they 
don't *love* him. And what could DD do about that? If they were 
physically hurting him, he could (and would, I'm sure) have made them 
stop. But you can't make a person love another person. I think DD 
knew the Dursleys attitude towards Harry. He described it perfectly 
in OoP - that Petunia accepted Harry unwillingly, furiously. But (as 
DD sees it) Harry's life depended on that acceptance, mean and 
ungracious as it was. And there was always the chance that they would 
reject Harry altogether. What if by meddling with them, DD would push 
the Dursleys to altogether refuse to accept Harry any longer? As a 
wise man, he should be very much aware of the inherent limits of 
power. 
I truly don't think that DD could have done anything to change the 
Dursleys attitude to Harry substantially.  I assume that DD didn't 
think that the Dursleys would seriously damage Harry, and in fact 
they haven't (not realistic, in my mind, but there it is). So, he put 
Harry in the only place where he would be safe, although at the price 
of an unhappy childhood. I don't envy him that decision. 


Naama