DD's dilemma - Protections and Perspectives

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 126351


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger"
<quigonginger at y...> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> 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)
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> So where would have been DD's "cut off point"? ...
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> .... 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.


bboyminn:

Yes, yes, yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

My point in making reference to historical standards, as well as other
cultures, and other countries, is to point out that our modern day
very liberal standards, is not likely the standard that Dumbledore is
using. 

Dumbledore is a man with a very broad out look on history, because he
has lived a substantial amount of it. His opinions are less likely to
change with ever-changing social trends.

OK, so far all I've said is I agree with myself and with Ginger, to
redeem myself from this List trangression, I do have one more point to
add.

Dumbledore is a magical being, more than anything that substantially
alters his standard. Wizards are very resilient. Neville was drop on
his head from a (presumably) second story window and lived to joke
about it. In addition, the other wizards he told this incident to, got
the joke and laugh along with him. 

Given Harry confrontations with Voldemort and given his Quidditch
accidents, it seems fair to say the wizards are physically resilient.
But given the many psychological tramas Harry has endure, only to come
out of it in very good shape; all things considered, it seems fair to
say the wizards are also psychologically resilient.

I can't say that with any authoritity, because I have limited
information. Dumbledore has thousands of years of documented wizard
history combined with 150 years of his own personal experience to draw
on. Not to mention, a decade or two as headmaster of a school. I think
he is a better judge than I. 

Because we can't really measure a fair standard from Dumbledore's
perspective, the best we can do with our limited knowledge is comment
on the NATURE of the Dursley's treatment of Harry. I think we can
agree that the nature of their treatment of him was /abusive/. 

To me, /abusive/ is word that covers a broader spectrum, and I feel
much more comfortable with it. Admittedly, this has a lot to do with
my personal reaction to discussion of Abuse (note the capital 'A'),
and with my own view of the broader context of /abusive/. 

That's why I'm trying to promote the postion that we never will agree
on whether Harry was Abused, because that hinges on a variable and
personal definition of 'abuse'. But, I've yet to hear anyone argue
against the idea that the /nature/ of the Dursley's treatment of Harry
sometimes fell into the context of /abusive/.

Part of my point, is that agruing /abuse/ is a no win argument. It
can't be determined with certainty. Yes, YOU personally can be
certain, but you can never raise a consensus of certainty on Abuse.

But I think we can reach a high consensus on the /abusive nature/ of
Harry's treatment.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Steve/bboyminn