House Elves & Slavery - minus Goblin thoughts

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 126644



> bboyminn:
> 
> Did I read this sentence correctly-
> "You may be right IF indeed the flaw is in the /elves/ nature."
> 
> Did you mean 'elves nature' or 'wizards nature'? I'm not sure it 
will
> change my response, just wonder if it was a typo.

a_svirn:

I meant elves nature. 

> bboyminn:
> 
> I stand firmly on the position that it IS the natural normal 
nature of
> House-elves to serve humans. That really is their true /natural/
> nature. On that we seem to disagree. 
> 
> But I will agree with your implication that the current 
manifestation
> of the House-elves servitude did not evolve without help. Wizard 
have
> indeed perverted the good nature of House-Elves, but NOT by 
convincing
> them that they have to be 'slaves'. 

a_svirn:
You know, Steve, you have a real gift for understatements. No, I 
don't believe that wizards CONVINCED elves to be slaves either. I 
rather think that they have ruthlessly forced elves to their 
bidding. That is what DD told Harry, and I imagine he knew what he 
was about.  


> bboyminn:

The pervertion is in House-Elves
> believing they have to take everything a wizard dishes out. That 
they
> have to accept abuse, as well as dishonor and disrespect by their
> 'masters'. 
> 
> I am also rejecting the human notion of /slavery/ with respect to 
the
> House-elves. If you abuse and mistreat your kids, are they then by
> that action slaves? If you make them work around the house, are 
they
> by that action then slaves? We can say kids are different because 
they
> have free will, but if they truly have free will then why don't 
they
> reject the abuse and /forced/ labor? You can counter that by saying
> that they are free to leave, but are they? Why do you suppose kids
> stay in abusive situation? Because they are bound by their family
> connection, and are for the most part, completely dependant on 
their
> parents.
> 
> I admit that illustration is somewhat limited in reflecting the
> House-Elves situation. 

a_svirn:

You reject the term "slaves" because elves are not human by nature, 
but your example is not any better, since it's concerned with human 
adults and human kids. I believe that slaves are a closer analogy 
though than children. After all one can treat children with either 
kindness or severity bordering on abuse, but the ultimate goal of 
any such exercise is to mould them into adults which is to say 
equals. When and where this goal is substituted for any other one 
the line between treating kids as kids and treating them as slaves 
is crossed. With elves on the other hand whether one treats them 
kindly or cruelly doesn't change the underlying assumption that they 
are inferior. 



> bboyminn:
> If you look at the general mythology around various Helper-Elf
> legends, you will see that they volunteer their services. They are 
not
> slaves. Now JKR's Helper-Elves go a little beyond that in that they
> make a bonded commitment of loyalty and service to the people they
> serve; call those people masters if you will, but that doesn't make
> House-Elves slaves.

a_svirn:

I might be wrong of course by doesn't the term "commitment" implies 
the idea of free will and choice? You seem to forget that house 
elves have neither. How come they enter into "voluntary servitude" 
then? Dobby was the only elf who did indeed enter into voluntary 
arrangement with DD, but 1) his previous situation was anything but 
voluntary servitude, 2) he's somewhat of an oddity among his kind, 
and his arrangement with DD cannot be described as servitude. It's 
employment. 


> bboyminn: 
> So the Elves enter into voluntary servitude. I firmly believe what
> holds them there in service is not a force of magic or law, but the
> potential violation of their core nature, and the shame and 
disgrace
> that comes with it. That is what we are seeing in Winky, in here 
mind
> she has violated her very essense of being, and now can not face 
the
> shame and disgrace of having done so. 

a_svirn:

I agree with you about Winky's felling herself disgraced. But I 
believe that this is a direct result of wizards' tampering with 
elves `core nature' or mind or whatever you'd like to call it. It's 
a result of enchantments DD has mentioned AND decades (or, perhaps 
centuries) of training. That is why I am saying that Hermione cannot 
really FREE elves, since in their minds they are still bound to 
their masters even after they are given clothes. 


> bboyminn:  
> I guess my really point in response to your 'evolution' comment, is
> that I agree wizards have corrupted and influenced that core 
nature of
> elves, not with regard to their desire to serve, but with regard to
> the Elves accepting their ill treatment. Wizard have exploited and
> even re-enforced the fierce honor and loyalty of Elves, preying on 
and
> further re-enforcing their shame so that wizards could maintain 
their
> power over the Elves. 
> 
> It is in the normal nature of elves to serve, but it is not in the
> normal nature of any species to be mistreated and abused. In short,
> they DO really like the service, but they hate the abuse. As much 
as
> they hate the abuse, their sense of honor and loyalty will not let
> them leave. 
> 
> BUT and this is a big BUT, if the Elves do choose to leave their
> Master and their Master's abuse, there is nothing in magic or law 
that
> can stop them. The only tool or weapon Masters have against the 
elves
> is shame, and if the elves are no longer buying in to that, then 
the
> Masters can't hold them. (my speculation)

a_svirn:

I believe you are wrong here. DD said distinctly that Kreacher and 
Dobby had been forced to their masters' bidding by the enchantments 
of their kind. And since elves are not even allowed wands under the 
current wizarding law, I believe there are quite a few regulations 
that prevent them from doing anything their "real normal nature" 
might prompt them to do. 


 > bboyminn: 

> I admit that the two of us are splitting hairs and are separated 
by a
> very fine line. The reason I reject the use of the word 'slavery' 
even
> though the books and the elves themselves use the 
term 'enslavement'
> to refer to their service, is because we are not dealing with 
slavery
> in a human context. Human slaves are either kidnapped or conquered,
> and forced into slavery, and held against their will for 
generations.
> The penalty for violation of service is death. 
> 
> Elves on the other hand eagerly seek out service, and are unhappy 
when
> it is not available. Seeking out service is the first thing Dobby 
did
> upon being freed. Remember the penalty to an Elf for violation of
> service is not death, but freedom. That tells you a lot about the
> arrangement.

a_svirn:

It does indeed. It makes elves situation even worse than human 
enslavement, because elves are violated not only physically, but 
also mentally. I think that in making elves actually reject freedom 
and regard it as the ultimate punishment JKR tries to demonstrate 
metaphorically how such arrangements corrupt one's very nature and 
judgment. It's is hardly a secret that in our world "hereditary" 
slaves more often that not are afraid of freedom and cannot imagine 
being their own masters. Only in their case it's the result of their 
upbringing while elves suffer from upbringing AND magic.