Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 124393


>>Alla:
>It appears  though that no proof which I am able to quote will be 
convincing enough for you, Betsy.<

Betsy:
No, there isn't.  Because there is nothing that casts guilt on 
Dumbledore to the extent that Lupinlore was demanding up thread.

>>Alla
>For the simple reason that you and  me are judging abuse by 
completely different criteria.<

Betsy:
Not just abuse.  We obviously disagree about what constitutes mortal 
danger.  What folks who are so willing to lynch Dumbledore for 
leaving Harry with the Dursleys seem to be suggesting is the 
equivalent of a Jewish family in Germany in the 1930's deciding not 
to send their son to England to live on a farm, because the boy will 
be worked hard and the farmer and his wife don't seem to love him.  
Yes, the boy will be more loved and cherished in his familiar 
environment.  Until the Nazis kick the door in.  And suddenly the 
farm doesn't look so bad. 

What I find hard to understand is that the Dursleys become these 
psychotic monsters, and Voledmort and his Death Eaters become these 
slightly grumpy but otherwise quite fluffy folks.

>>Alla;
>If for you Harry hating his life at Dursleys and what you called 
Dursleys "less than stellar behaviour" is not a proof of abuse, I am 
not sure what else to say.
>The fact that Harry survived life at Dursleys is thanks to Harry and 
to Harry only, IMO. Dursleys' intent matters, NOT whether Harry has 
scars from it ( and I will certainly not concede that he does not 
have scars - as I argued earlier his mistrust of adults is typical of 
the abuse victim, IMO)<

Betsy:
And yet, there *are* adults that Harry trusts.  He's very independent 
minded, yes (and I see that as a strength).  But Harry looks to 
McGonagall, Lupin, Sirius, Hagrid, and even Dumbledore for help and 
support throughout the series.  And again, if Harry came out of his 
ordeal with the Dursleys with a stong sense of his own self worth, 
then Dumbledore chose wisely.  For the choice to have been foolish or 
criminal, you have to be able to point to examples of how that choice 
begat failure.

>>Alla:
>"She doesn't love me," said Harry at once. "She doesn't give a damn-
" - OOP, p.836.
>If this is not a scar from abuse, I don't know what is.<

Betsy:
Maybe, "She doesn't love me.  No one loves me.  I'm worthless and 
stupid and I'll just go sit in the corner now and let the rest of the 
world got to pot."

Recognizing that someone doesn't love you doesn't mean you're abused 
or scarred -- actually, I'd call that life. Thinking that their lack 
of love reflects on your own self-worth is an example of scarring, 
IMO.  (A rather large point, that I think get's overlooked, is that 
Harry *never* confuses Aunt Petunia with his mother.) 

>>Alla:
>And I wanted to quote again Phoenixgod's analogy from his 123415 
post:
>"Regardless of whether or not Harry has transcended the limitations 
of his upbringing, it does not excuse the actions that put him in the 
situation in the first place.
>If I throw you into a room with axe wielding maniac suspecting that 
you're a master martial artist and will survive the encounter, that 
doesn't mean that my actions were right.
>Dumbledore abandoned Harry to people that none of us would want to 
know or live with. That is wrong regardless of Harry's mental 
resilience."<

Betsy:
See, this is a perfect example of hysterical hyperbole that seems to 
be developing around Harry's life with the Dursleys.  "Axe wielding 
maniac"?!?!  Wha...?  The Dursleys never even *struck* Harry for 
heavens sake.  And "abandoned"?  Harry wasn't doomed to live with the 
Dursleys forever.  (And we'll just ignore Voldemort and his Death 
Eaters -- because they're really sort of fluffy if you squint.)

Harry is alive.  Harry is sane.  Harry is remarkably self-confident.  
My goodness but Dumbledore let him down!

Betsy