DD's dilemma - Protections and Perspectives

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 126326


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" 
> <susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> > 
> <SNIP> 
> > 
> > SSSusan:
> > Because now DD has the news and the proof that Voldemort *is* in 
> > fact back?  And that gives him leverage he didn't have before?  
> > 
> > This plays into the protection I *believe* DD offered the 
> > Dursleys. Before Voldy returned, the Dursleys MIGHT have 
> > pooh-poohed the possibility that he could even do so.  Thus, what 
> > would they care if they pitched out Harry and DD withdrew his 
> > protection?  But now that  it's clear Voldy IS back and that 
> > danger has come veeeerry close to  their dear Dudley [even if it 
> > didn't come from Voldy himself],  Petunia may well want to "cash 
> > in" on that protection, *but* she is  reminded by DD's Howler that
> > she can't unless she keeps Harry.
> > 
> > No proof, of course; just my suspicions.
> > 
> > SSSusan

> Lupinlore"
> 
> Well, the problem here Susan is that you put DD in an even worse 
> moral position.  Not only does he do nothing, he has potential 
> specific leverage over the Dursleys and STILL does nothing.  All 
> these MIGHTS just aren't an acceptable excuse for turning a blind 
> eye to child abuse. Sorry, but that scenario just sinks him further 
> into a quagmire of ineptitude/cold hearted manipulation.
> 
> Lupinlore

bboyminn:

Perhaps I haven't followed this thread close enough, but I don't
understand your reply Lupinlore. How does SSSusan's comment put
Dumbledore in a worse moral position?

Before and after Voldemort's return, the Dursley's have some
spill-over protection from Harry's presences in their home. 

Before the fact, that protection doesn't give Dumbledore much leverage
over the Dursleys because it is protection from something that doesn't
actually exist, confining the context to Voldemort for the moment. The
threat of withdrawing protection against a hypothetical danger, is not
much of a threat and therefore is not much leverage.

After the fact, that threat is very real, and now Harry's presence in
their home has great value to the Dursley's. Dumbledore's potential
threat to withdraw this protection therefore carries great weight.

And as SSSusan noted, the Howler reminded Petunia that the protection
wasn't unconditional, to keep the protection, they had to keep Harry.

Oddly, the Dursley's have squandered their potential protection. Now
that Harry is older, he is less likely to stay at the Dursley's for as
long a period of time, and is indeed only a year or two from leaving
them for good. True without Harry there, the Dursley's are less likely
to be collateral damage in an attack on Harry, but with Voldemort's
return, a direct attack on the Dursley's could be used as a means to
draw Harry out. So, there is a very real element of danger even if
Harry isn't in the house.

So, again, did I miss a piece of the conversation, or am I simply
missing Lupinlore's point?

 


Some general points-

Simply, Dumbledore felt Harry had the greatest protection by being in
the house where his mother's blood dwells. Dumbledore further felt
that this protection was INDEED necessary under the circumstances.
Circumstances that we as readers do not have full information on.

Harry arrived at the Dursley's at the tender age of about 1-1/2 which
means it would be roughly three years (or more) before Harry ventured
out of the house in any significant way. That approx. three year
buffer zone, gave the danger to Harry sufficient time to mellow. Death
Eaters could be tracked down. The real degree of threat could be fully
assessed. In the meantime, Harry would have his maximum possible
protection.

To the Dursley's treatment of Harry. I will again remind people that
Harry treatment is only out of order by today's very liberal
standards. I must remind you all that caning (whipping) was only
removed from UK schools in mid 1980's (Shaun...exact date?), and to
some extent physical punishment still exists in certain school today
in the US, the UK, and I assume many other countries. 

In addition, it was not that long ago that while the Dursley's
treatment of Harry might have been considered harsh, it would not have
been considered criminal. It would have fell within the scope of
allowable methods for parents and guardians to raise and discipline
their kids.

Further, there are many kids in the real world that are horribly
horribly abused relative to Harry. 

I'm sure, although others have their doubts, that Dumbledore agonized
over continuing to leave Harry at the Dursley's, but it would take
something pretty substantial to override the knowledge that this
placed represented the place of greatest protection.

Also, it human nature to procrastinate, to become entrench in the 'as
is' and blinded to all the 'could be'. 

Finally, Dumbledore is a busy man, a poor excuse, but none the less
true. He has a school to run. He has national and international
government positions demanding his time. While I don't think that
forced Harry completely out of Dumbledore's mind, he was busy, and
that made it easy to accept the status quo, and diffucult to consider
and impliment corrective actions.

Dumbledore's human, with all it's frailties and flaws, and considering
his overal good nature, I can forgive his mistakes.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn