Yet another DD Dursley thread (was Harsh Morality )

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 121035



> > Snow: 
> > this was Dumbledore's only choice
 given the sacrifice that Lily 
> > made; he could only expand on Lily's sacrifice and give even 
more protection to it. Was that a sacrifice in itself, yes! But it 
was a- worse-than-all-evils-choice. Dumbledore had less than 24 
hours to combat what he thought had happened with what could 
eventually happen. Given the `gray' or unknown area Dumbledore had 
to face(the plan), of not knowing absolutely who was trustworthy, 
whom better than a muggle (and a giant)? And Dumbledore used them 
both
wisely. 
> It worked so far because Harry isn't dead from abuse or any other 
> reason that could stem from abuse but overcame his upbringing and 
has defied Voldemort four times.
>

Lupinlore: 
> I said I wasn't going to get into this, but I'm afraid I can't let 
it go.  Could you elaborate, Snow, on what you mean by this?  I 
don't think you are saying that it's good that Harry was abused.  In 
what way was Dumbledore's decision correct? 

Valky:
Excuse me, all, as I intervene on this matter. I think that what 
Snow is actually saying, and yes I do agree, that in the 24hrs 
following Voldemorts vapourisation DD alone had to quickly consider 
what resources he had, the trust in him of the late Lily and James 
and all other OOtP people whom were close to them and cared for 
Harry, the danger that lay in the future and all in the face of 
knowing himself that the prohecy was only partially fulfilled, and 
hence that Voldemort would return to power someday. 
The wizard world was /not/ safe, Nevilles parents were attacked 
after Harry was placed at the Dursleys, the DE's were being rounded 
up for at least a year that we know of, following such. Now 
Dumbledore may not have been pleased to be the bearer of tidings 
that Harry Potter would be safe in the keep of a family of less than 
admirable muggle folk, but the fact is Harry *was* SAFE and DD 
himself couldn't make Harry safer than Lily already had. His 
decision was not so much *correct* as it was the *only* one that was 
any kind of guarantee, in a time were guarantees were few to non-
existent.

Lupinlore:
> Surely he could have forced the Dursleys to act more 
> appropriately.  And surely you don't mean to 
> imply that child abuse can EVER be a good thing, or it is ever 
> appropriate to put someone in an abusive household to "strengthen" 
> or "toughen" them.
> 

Valky:
I don't think that anyone *least of all JKR* is even remotely 
implying this. Though to some degree JKR I *think* implies, that the 
relatively harmless ego battering that Harry endures from the 
Dursley's is, in DD's mind, slightly favourable to the wanton 
corruption and mortal danger that he would have faced daily in the 
WW, as an equally loved and hated celebrity.
Most importantly of all, IMO, Dumbledore gazed at the *big picture 
Harry* and endeavoured to ENSURE ABSOLUTELY his survival, though in 
hindsight he felt that it was regrettable decision. 
And ONLY the blood of Aunt Petunia could unblinkeringly GUARANTEE 
anything, anything else was a gamble, at any time of Harry's life.
 
Lupinlore:
> My problem is his inaction for ten years 
> thereafter.  Surely once it became apparent that the DE threat was 
at least momentarily at bay there were more appropriate arrangements 
> that could have been made.  Or given that he feared Voldemort's 
> return (and I readily grant he had no way, as far as we know, of 
> predicting when that might be) surely he had it within his power 
to force the Dursleys to behave more appropriately, not to mention 
he had it within his ability to provide more support for Harry from 
the Wizarding World. 

Valky:
Here I partially agree with you, Lupinlore. But I am sure that DD 
*must* have had his reasons for needing to keep his distance. 
If it was essentially, just Dumbledore rationalising the possible 
cost of losing guaranteed protection for Harry weighed against one 
or two trivial matters in the Dursley household, and it may well 
have started that way.... and as the years passed each *minor* 
transgression by the Dursleys was weighed and measured to be not 
relative to the importance of Harry's life, before too long they 
added up and nine to ten years had passed.... by which time of 
course help was on it's way for Harry...... well if it was 
essentially this, it kind of makes sense. Dumbledore never intended 
to let it go on, but action just kept being rationalised away by the 
greater need for ensuring the boy stayed alive.
As for visiting rights, well I seriously doubt any kind of 
visitation would have gone over well with the Dursleys, even if 
Remus or DD had showed up to Mrs Figgs for tea with Harry, surely 
the mere mention of it by Harry to Petunia and Vernon would have 
created chaos in the ranks and destabilised the situation and put 
Harry at risk of ousting. 
DD sealed Harry into Petunia's protection with a charm of his own, 
the advantage of Lily's great sacrifice made it possible, only once. 
If the Charm was broken by Petunia, if DD pushed her beyond the 
brink of her willing involvement just enough, for anything at all, 
the Charm couldn't be replaced. It was a once only deal, that 
guaranteed only one thing. Harry's physical survival. For however 
long DD felt Harry needed that guarantee, he could do nothing to 
jeopardise it.