Are we abusing the concept of "abuse?" Perspective Please

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 124673


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson"
<norek_archives2 at h...> wrote:
> "Elizabeth G" <Bazile2OO3 at h...> suggests:
> 
> >And according to my mother the social worker who used to work Child
> > Protective Service, she would have removed both Harry and Dudley 
> > from the home if this had been an actual situation.


> See, this is why I think people have no sympathy for various
> posters' incessant cries of "abuse" -- the fact that apparently it 
> can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.  There is some 
> justification for claiming abuse in Harry's case, but DUDLEY?
> 
> *snips extensive description of abuse*
> 
> Yes, he was spoiled.  But he certainly was niether physically or 
> emotionally abused.  
> 
> I think there is a considerable difference between bad parenting 
>(which the Dursleys definitely do) and abuse.  By the sweeping 
> descriptions we've been  reading, almost every adult character in 
> the books is abusive in some way -- 
> ...edited... ... Sheesh.
> 
> Janet Anderson

bboyminn:

I've really tried to hold my tongue on the issue of Harry's abuse
because it is really a hot button for a lot of people as can be
witnessed by the heated discussion that's been going on for a few weeks.

I did voice my opinion on this issue on Jan 25, 2005
Subject: Dursley's and Harry (was: Innocent Alby?) (LONG)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123018

which should give you some idea of how long we have been debating.

I don't take exception to the idea that the Dursleys were mean nasty
people, but I do take exception to the people who vehemently shout
ABUSE! with near fanatic forcefullness. 

There are children in this world who are horrendously, brutally,
sadistically, and inhumanly abuse, and to shout of Harry's abuse with
such zealous forcefullness does an injustice to these truly abuse kids.

The problem with /abuse/ is that we have abuse (note, all small
letters), Abuse, ABUSE, and ABUSE!!!!!!!!! What constitues abuse is
subject to the social and political climate of the times. As I have
already pointed out in my other post, it wasn't that long ago that
British schools used the Cane to discipline students. With /wacks/ of
the Cane frequently reaching substantial numbers and force. Our good
friend in this group, Shaun H., has had personal experience with the Cane.

This physical punishement is a legendary aspect of British Boys
Schools. In addition, here in the USA, corporal punishemnt has it's
own legendary aspect in Catholic Schools; those nuns can be brutal.
Further, I suspect corporal punishment while greatly curtailed, is
still allowed in USA Catholic Schools today.

By today's 'touchy feely' standard, those actions are considered
barbaric, but those /barbaric/ times were only a decade or so ago. 

Specifically to Harry's case, while I wouldn't have any trouble saying
that the Dursleys were /abusive/ by today's standards, and I would say
with enthusiasm that they are mean nasty people. I would not, however,
go about feverently proclaiming how horribly Harry was abused, not
when they are so many kids in the world who are abused far worse.

In other words, let's try and keep our enthusiasm in perspective with
what actually happened, and in proportion to the full range of abuse
that occurs in the world.

I'm not say that the Dursleys aren't bad, in fact, I AM saying that
they ARE bad, just trying to get that /bad/ properly placed in the
spectrum of /bad/ in this world.

I would speculate to those who are forcefully proclaiming abuse, that
those who are opposing your views in discussions are not so much
trying to counter the idea of abuse, but instead are trying to counter
your level of enthusiasm. Again, they and I are making a plea for
proportion and perspective.

The Dursley's actions were abusive in nature; I think those on either
side of the issue would allow that statement to stand. I think by
today's standards, the Dursleys would be in trouble if the authorities
found out about it. I think we can all agree on that. 

/Can/ we all agree on this much?


So, if the Dursleys are so /bad/ then why was Harry placed with them,
and why did he remain with them?

First, Harry is at the Dursley's for LEGAL reasons. They are his only
and CLOSE relatives, very close relatives, consequently, in the
absents of Sirius, any court in the land would surely and without
hesitation give the Dursleys legal custody of Harry. They are his
immediate family, they are legally and morally responsible for taking
care of him. They did a crappy job of it, but for the moment, we are
concentrating on the legal aspect.

I'm sure some will argue that the Dursleys could turn Harry over to an
orphanage, and they certainly could. They could because, by having
legal authority over Harry, they have the legal authority to make that
decision.

Second, Dumbledore explained very clearly, that if the Dursleys took
Harry in, Harry would have very special very strong magical protection
while under their care. Further, in explaning to Harry why he must
live at the Dursley's, Dumbledore specifically mentions the dangers of
the Death Eaters who remained after Voldemort was vaporized.

So, at the Dursley is where Harry is safest. Harry was, by reasonable
conclusion, protected from anyone wishing to do him harm. Note I'm
sure some will say that Harry was harmed by the Dursleys, but not in
the truest sense. He was /hurt/ by them, that is, they caused him
pain, but he was never harmed by them, that is, he was never
physically damaged by the Dursleys. 

So, why did he remain with the /nasty/ Dursleys? Well, I think we have
already agreed that if the muggle authorities found out, they would
have done something. Conclusion, the muggle authorities didn't find out.

The Dursleys went out of their way to give the neighbors the
impression that Harry was an extreme disciplinary problem, a trouble
maker, and it seems that the neighbors have full bought this idea.
Consequently, everyone in the neighborhood gives Harry a wide berth.
Teachers and the school seem to have taken the same attitude. So, the
general concensus is that Harry is a wild boy who needs a firm hand.

So, that takes care of any problems with muggles and muggle authorities.

So, now what about Dumbledore? The muggles couldn't/didn't do anything
to intervene for Harry, but why didn't Dumbledore. Well, from his
distant outpost, given his limited information which certainly
included knowledge that the Dursley were not treating Harry nicely,
Dumbledore had to set his priorities. His absolute number one priority
was keeping Harry alive; he said so. The most likely place for Harry
to stay alive is under the Protection of Blood at the home of the
Dursleys. 

Something very big would have to occur to cause Dumbledore's 'Keep
Harry Alive' priority to shift. OK, Harry life at the Dursley's sucks
big time, but he is alive and well. His basic needs are being taken
care of. It will be hell, but he won't die.

I think now in hindsight, Dumbledore sees that he could have done
better; he could have done more. In fact, I think as each year goes by
and he gets to know Harry better, he regrets more and more the
decisions he made. But what's done is done, Harry is here now, health,
alive, strong, courageous, and as much as possible, happy. 

So, what's done is done. Dumbledore, in this new moment of crisis,
doesn't have the luxury of sitting back and lamenting the past for
hours on end. A war is beginning, and the demands of the future have
never been greater. So, he sucks it up, as does Harry, and they move
forward from there.

For better or worse, that's how I see it. 

Steve/bboyminn