Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor )

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 124475


>>Lupinlore: 
>Okay, I admit.  I was over the top the last couple of posts.  Sorry, 
but child abuse does that to me.<

Betsy:
Thank you for the apology, Lupinlore.  I admit that your last posts 
did raise an eyebrow.  However, I do want to try and clearly state my 
take on Harry's place with the Durselys and Dumbledore's part in it.

First of all, the Durselys are bad parents.  I would not try and 
argue differently.  Both Harry and to an almost greater extent, 
Dudley, bear that out.  Personally, I wouldn't let the Dursely's 
board my dog for a day, all things being equal.

However, and this is where I think the massive disagreements come in, 
I *don't* think Dumbledore was wrong to give Harry to them.  Because 
things *aren't* equal.  Harry *is* living under a death threat.  A 
very real, very powerful death threat.

Dumbledore makes it very clear that Voldemort is equal to him in 
magical knowledge and cunning.  Any trick Dumbledore tries (fake 
death, new name or appearance, a move to the far side of the world) 
will be seen through.  He even tells us that Voldemort is aware of 
the blood sacrifice Lily used.  Dumbledore's *only* advantage is that 
Voldemort thinks so little of such magic (based as it is, on love) 
that he pretty much ignores it.  So Voldemort has not figured out a 
way to break such a bond.

For me, this is huge.  This, more than anything, explains exactly why 
Dumbledore felt that he *must* build off the blood sacrifice.  The 
*only* place where Harry is safe is at the Dursleys.

I used an analogy (that was ignored, I notice) of a Jewish family 
sending their child out of harms way in the 1930's.  Plenty of London 
families did similar things during the Blitz.  Some of those children 
were, I'm sure, loved by the families that took them in.  Some, I'm 
equally sure, where not.  And I'm also sure that if one looked, there 
were probably some examples of children treated horribly.  But I do 
not condemn the parents who sent their children to safety.  And so I 
do not condemn Dumbledore for sending Harry to the Dursleys.

>>Alla:
>Petunia definitely tried to hit him with frying pan, but it is OK, 
right? Makes you stronger.<
>Let me post you another hypo. Suppose Dursleys tried to hit Harry 
multiple times every day, BUT all of those hits magically rebounced 
and Harry did not feel anything at all. Do you think Harry is abused 
in such situation or not?<

Betsy:
The key word here is "tried."  Aunt Petunia swings, Harry ducks, they 
go about their day.  My point was, Harry has never been *struck.*  He 
never acts like he's afraid of being struck.  He gets in a wrestling 
match with Uncle Vernon in the very first book, for goodness sake.  
Honestly, I don't think he can be hit.  When Uncle Vernon grabs him 
in OotP something shocks him enough that he has to let go.  So I 
think Harry is magically protected.

That's why I think the arguements that try and state that no matter 
the death threat hanging over Harry, Dumbledore should have brought 
him out, are not very convincing.  Because the Dursley behavior tends 
to be exaggerated in those arguments.  They are horrid people, and 
they do treat Harry badly, yes.  But they don't go so far that the 
scale tips into the direction of, "must get Harry out, no matter who 
may get killed." (Especially since I agree with a previous poster 
that the Longbottoms would have been an obvious choice for fostering 
Harry, and we all know how safe they were.)

And yes, this is my opinion, but it's not really something that's 
written in stone for me.  If someone could seriously point to the 
Dursley's really giving Harry hell to the point they actually risked 
his life,  or can point to a very obvious safe place where Harry 
could have lived, I would concede that Dumbledore chose badly.

Betsy