DD's dilemma - Protections and Perspectives

[quigonginger]

No: HPFGUIDX 126336


Steve (bboyminn) said: (and in my opinion, said well)
> 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. 

Ginger:
Steve, you hit on something that has been on my brain since the last 
time this subject was on screen.  I think you are right on target.

My question is: At what point would DD have intervened, if this was 
an option?  I'm still undecided as to whether or not it was, but for 
the sake of arguement, let's say it was.

DD is 150 years old, give or take.  So at the time Harry was placed 
with the Dursleys, DD was 140ish.  Unless my math is off (could be), 
this means DD was born circa 1840.  If he had children, he would have 
raised them around 1860 to 1900, possibly even up to 1950.  I am 
giving him a broad range due to WW life expectancy.

Of course, I wasn't personally around at this time, but if you look 
at history, childrearing has changed drasticly.  Offhand, I think of 
the "Little House" books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, who was raised in 
the mid to late 1800's.  I remember a scene where she slapped her 
sister Mary, and Pa saw it and called her into the house.  She fully 
expected to be spanked with a strap.  She was about 4 or 5 at the 
time.  She knew she deserved it, but he surprised her by not 
punishing her.  Her parents are portrayed throughout the series as 
very loving parents.  This was just how things were done then.

Back to DD.  If he was raised in this era, by these standards, the 
Dursleys must not have looked like much of a threat to him.  
Comparatively speaking.  But it is not a light comparison.  Were the 
hindquarters of children in the 1800's any less delicate than those 
in the 1900's?  Well, maybe after a few strappings. ;o)

For the most part, our views tend to be formed during our late 
childhood and early adulthood.  We question them, test them, and with 
some exceptions, have them set by mid-adulthood.  

(OT aside):My sister teaches university classes in gerontology.  She 
did an interesting presentation on how the music that was popular in 
our youths reflects the values we carry on in life.  I wonder if we 
asked people as close as we could find to DD's age if the Dursleys 
were abusive, what the answers would be.  Probably as varied as ours, 
but I'd bet a knut that they'd see it as less abusive than we would.

Back on topic:
DD seems to be pretty progressive in his childrearing views for 
someone of his generation.  We know whippings aren't allowed at 
Hogwarts.  I inferred that it was due to his influence.  I could be 
wrong there.  

But we have never seen the Dursleys whip Harry.  We have seen him 
sent to his room (or in the first book, closet) without supper, and 
often for days at a time. We have seen Dudley smack him and bully 
him.  We have seen him forced to do many extra chores which Dudley 
didn't have to do.  Which was very unfair, but not abusive.  They 
were chores a child that age could be expected to do in a home 
without servants.  We have seen him subsist on minimal feedings.  
Again, very nasty.  I would say this is the worst thing they have 
done to him, but then again, I'm rather fond of food and get very 
cranky when my access is limited. 

So where would have been DD's "cut off point"?  Would he intervene if 
they whipped him?  If they kept him from going to school?  If they 
knowingly allowed a child molester to take him for the weekend?  My 
guess is probably so.  (Again, assuming he could have.)

One thing I wonder, and there is no conclusive canon that I could 
find (any help here would be appreciated):  How much and how often 
was he punished for things which did *not* involve magic?  It seems 
like all the punishment that I recall involved magic in some way: the 
teacher's wig, being on top of the school, his hair regrowing, etc.

Petunia's response to his query about his parents' death was just a 
thin lined mouth, and "Don't ask questions".  I haven't found any 
other non-magical references.

So what it comes down to, if DD could have intervened, is at what 
point he would have done so.  Given the life experience and mindset 
of those typical of his generation, rather than imposing those that 
have come about very recently (in the grand scheme of things), what 
would led him to intervene?


The Dursleys didn't love Harry.  That should have been the greatest 
motivating factor in his treatment, and the Dursleys thouroughly 
failed on that.  I can grit my teeth and deal with the other things 
they did, but for that one thing, I can not forgive them.  But I can 
not say that, knowing what we know, I would have intervened.  As 
almost everyone has said, we don't know enough at this point.

As always, unless I am referring to actual canon, these are my 
opinions and my take on the subject.  Others may agree or disagree as 
they see fit.

Ginger, who wishes she could slap the $4!+ out of some of the kids 
she sees in the store where she works, as their parents obviously 
haven't done so.  Nasty, bratty, thieving little monsters.