Dursley's and Harry (was: Innocent Alby?) (LONG)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 123018


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> Yes, he was starved , A LOT, in fact. I quoted canon on it many 
> times, so if you would like me to cite it again, tell me. And 
> besides not having much of material things, Harry was deprived of 
> spiritual things - namely love and that is NOT a good thing in my 
> book at all.

 
> Betsy:
> I have problems with the word "starved" too.  Harry was not overfed, 
> that is true.  ...., and his growth rate hasn't been stunted. I'm 
> not trying to say the Dursley's were perfectly wonderful, but I 
> think they trod a very fine line without tipping into actual, 
> actionable (...legally) abuse.  After all, what would the neighbors 
> think?
> 
>...big edited...
> 
> 
> Just my opinion,
> 
> Alla

bboyminn:

Well, it's easy to take exception to the word 'starved' because there
is a difference between it's general implications and it's technical
implications. Technically, Harry wasn't starved; that is, he didn't
suffer from the clinical condition of 'starvation'. But in a more
broad and general (non-technical) sense, 'starved' comes pretty close.

Betsy makes the statement that Harry was not 'overfed', but that
certainly falls short of describing that happened to him. It would
probably be more accurate to say the Harry was 'underfed', and one
might go so far as to say 'chronically underfed'. However, that
circumstance of 'underfed' was not enough to cause a clinical
condition; in other words, not enough to make him sick.

However, the books make several references to Harry being skinny and
small for his age. So, I don't think it's quite fair to say 'his
growth rate hasn't been stunted'. I think there is evidence that his
growth rate HAS been stunted, but not stunted to the point of being a
medical problem. 

Regarding physical abuse, I think there are amble implications in the
books that Harry suffered from various and frequent physical
punishments, by Dudley-most certainly, and by Vernon and even Petunia. 

The problem is, what constitutes abuse is subjective, and is subject
to general social attitudes of the moment. Today, if you lose your
temper and scream at one of your unruly kids in the grocery store, you
are liable to have social services, child protection services, and
perhaps, even the police kicking down your door. 

But, it wasn't that long ago, as has been discussed here before, that
corporal punishment was common in British schools. Actually, beyond
common, it was actually legendary; at the heart of every British
schoolboy's experience. In addition, as every Catholic schoolboy will
attest, physical punishment has always been very common in private
Catholic schools. Those nuns can be brutal.

Note: public and private schools in this case refers to who pays (USA
style)
Public - governemnt pays, paid with public funds.
Private - parents pay, fees paid by private parties.

All that said, I think there are sufficient hints in the books, that
Harry suffered direct physical/corporal punishments that, by the
standards in the USA today, would have likely landed the Dursleys in
court and Harry in foster care. But by other social standards, may
have simply been considerd 'discipline' and the perogative of the
parent or guardian. 

Regardless of whether Harry's treatment fell into the LEGAL realm of
abuse at that point in history, it clear that the Dursleys, by a broad
and general definition, were abusive and neglectful of Harry. We
could, I guess, just drop the 'abuse' reference, and say that they
were mean and nasty to Harry.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboymonn