Olive Branch (was Re: Dumbledore the Counselor )

[phoenixgod2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 124517




> Betsy:

> 
> 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.

I will concede that there may have been a *short term* initial need 
to keep Harry beneath the Blood protection whille remaining Death 
Eaters like the Lestranges are being rounded up. Say six months or 
so. But ten years? After most the DE's are either in prison or 
playing the imperio victim and therefore unable to retaliate against 
the most beloved baby in the world? There had to be a better long 
term solution than the Dursley's.

People have criticized me over the What if's that I bring to table 
because there were so many bad ones that could have occured to 
Harry. After all, the world is full of what ifs. I could die on my 
way to my weekly D&D game today. It's unlikely, but it's a 
possibility.  The differnce is that I can minimize the possibilty of 
the negative what ifs. I can wear a seat belt and drive the speed 
limit, which will minimze my personal danger. My criticism of DD is 
that I have not seen any indication that he tried to minimize all 
the bad What Ifs that could have happened to Harry while at the 
Dursleys. Knowing what he knows about Tom Riddles life and 
experiences, that smacks of stupidity and short sightedness.

And no, being watched by Mrs. Figg doesn't count. 
  
> 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.

That is an interesting analogy. First of all, I doubt there were 
many that who were abused.  Wars have a way of bringing out the best 
in people as well as the worst. Secondly, I would assume that the 
parents would have sent their children to people they suspected of 
being good and kind hearted. I doubt they would have sent their 
childrent to someone they knew were a bad seed, or would try to use 
abuse to stamp out their jewishness. If there were bad guardians the 
parents wouldn't have known.  DD knew what he was getting with the 
Dursleys. That is the difference between him and your WW2 parents.
 

> 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.*  

How do you think he got into the cupboard? Do you think he ever 
protested being put inside while Duddly got a real bed?  What do you 
think would have happened had Harry complained about his conditions, 
as a small child would do before he learned it wouldn't do any 
good?  Do you think Vernon kindly told him to get in the cupboard in 
a reasoned tone of voice or was he cuffed about the ear until he did 
what he was told?

Harry wasn't always fast enough. Don't fool yourself and think 
otherwise.

phoenixgod2000