Old, old problem.

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 150954

Draeconin:
> As a brand new member, I must ask you to forgive me if this question
> has been asked and answered before.
> 
> Beyond JKR's furthering of her story, why was Harry placed with the
> Dursleys, who hated magic and magic users, in the first place?

Ceridwen:
Hi, Shamyn!  Welcome to the board!

One reason is because of the blood protection.  Harry is safe while 
he lives where his mother's blood dwells.  The only place this is 
possible is at the Dursleys', where Lily's only full-blood relation 
lives.  Lily and Petunia were sisters, apparently with the same 
parents (no half-sister or step-sister).  So the exact same blood as 
was in Lily's veins is in Petunia's.

Draeconin:
> We are told that it was to maintain the blood magic protection 
placed
> upon Harry by his mother. But for all anyone knew for sure, 
Voldemort
> was dead. His followers were either being rounded up, or were busy
> covering their tracks.  Even if it had been known for sure that
> Voldemort was NOT dead (all Dumbledore had to go on was a prophecy,
> remember), he was still too weak to be any kind of threat.  Other
> kinds of magical protection would have been enough to protect Harry.

Ceridwen:
Most of the WW did indeed think Voldemort was dead.  Dumbledore 
doubted it, but for now at least we don't know why.  The prophecy 
seems to have been fulfilled, 'either must die at the hand of the 
other', and there's Harry, and what seems to be LV's dead body (or 
what was left of it).  Dumbledore exercised caution when he didn't 
give in to the gleeful hysteria that gripped the WW following the 
apparent vaporization of Voldemort.  Instead, he took steps to 
protect the child who had been marked (another part of the prophecy, 
which may indicate that the final vanquishment would not come at the 
initial confrontation)

At the time when Dumbledore placed Harry with his relatives, all of 
the Death Eaters had not been caught.  Loyal followers, as we saw 
later with the Longbottoms, could be searching for Harry while still 
covering their tracks.  We do know that there was at least one more 
attack, that of the Longbottoms.

And, it isn't good to bounce a child from home to home.  Harry needed 
to be placed in a stable environment, at a time when there was a 
question as to where that might be.  Any WW family could turn out to 
have a traitor/LV supporter in their midst (just as the Black family 
had a 'blood traitor' in Sirius's refusal to go along with family 
belief, or more directly, Barty Crouch Jr. in Crouch's household).  
The only people who would not be LV supporters (even though they 
sometimes show up as such in fan fiction) would be the Dursleys.  
They have the added advantage of already knowing about the WW, so no 
Statutes of Secrecy will be violated.

Draeconin:
> The reason? Harry's genetic heritage. More
> specifically, his parents' characters.  James was an egotistical
> hellion, as witnessed by his activities as a Marauder and Harry's 
peek
> into Snape's pensieve.  We don't know much about Harry's mother, but
> from the little we do know, it can be inferred that she was a strong
> personality who thought for herself (James was practically adored by
> everyone but her, at least at first), and might have had something 
of
> a temper.

Ceridwen:
Hm.  Reading this over, I can't disagree that as a youth, James had 
plenty of faults stemming from his high opinion of himself.  But a 
person's opinion of himself comes from mirroring what other people 
think about him (Cooley's 'Looking Glass Self').  So there were 
people who did put James on a pedistal.  His parents, who JKR said 
were older parents of an only child, and apparently his housemates 
due to his prowess in Quidditch.  So if the self is informed by 
impressions gained from others, then Harry would have to earn the 
snobbish behavior rather than being born with it.

I'm interested in what you think of Lily.  As you describe her, she 
is an admirable person (strong personality who thinks for herself).  
You say yourself that she doesn't fawn all over James.  Would her 
sister be the same way?  (in fact, now that I'm thinking about it, is 
Petunia's dislike of the WW a gross exaggeration of Lily's refusal to 
kowtow to Quidditchhero!James?  Thanks for bringing this up, 
Draeconin!)

What it seems you are saying regarding Lily is, that Dumbledore 
doesn't want Harry to be independent or have a strong personality.  
This brings manipulation into the mix.  So, what I am understanding 
you as saying, and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that 
Dumbledore wants a Prophecy Boy who will naturally follow 
Dumbledore's instructions, first because his personality was scared 
out of him by the Dursleys (or beaten out of him, or humiliated out 
of him, or whatever) and second, because of the stark contrast 
between the way the Dursleys treated him, and the way Dumbledore and 
others on the side of Light (Hagrid in particular since he is the 
first of the WW Harry actually meets).

Draeconin:
> It's a common belief that children inherit the temperament of their 
> parents, and in a society that's about a hundred years behind the
> times, it would have been even more so.  However, it is well known
> that an abusive environment will often produce timid children.  So 
is
> it beyond the realm of belief that Dumbledore would think to modify
> what he would believe to be a too-strong personality in such a way?

Ceridwen:
This belief isn't so common in our world any more.  The debate about 
Nature v. Nurture has swung back and forth, influenced at least in 
part by external events.  After WWII, for instance, Nature took a 
back seat due to the Nazi insistence on Blood Supremacy, which is a 
Nature argument.  At the moment, the blended view of both Nature and 
Nurture is the most common.  A hundred years ago, if we can visualize 
the WW as being that far sociologically behind the real world (and it 
does seem to hold certain traditional values beside progressive 
values) they would still hold to the idea that Nature and Nurture 
both play a part.

With the future of the entire WW hanging on Harry, I don't think that 
Dumbledore would want a timid hero.  He could collapse in the face of 
Voldemort and his supporters, or even have a breakdown.  The sort of 
environment at the Dursleys, I would think, would produce a fighter 
rather than a doormat or puppet, precisely because of the outright 
dislike and animosity they show toward him and his parents.  Either 
he'll cave in badly, or he'll stand and grow stronger.  If Dumbledore 
took Harry's parents' personalities into account, then he relied on 
James's arrogance and Lily's strength to keep Harry from caving, and 
make him into a fighter instead.  No matter what Dumbledore's 
intentions, Harry did indeed become a fighter during his time at the 
Dursleys.  And if Dumbledore thought of it at all, then this is what 
he would expect, IMO, whereas a WW family would coddle him and bring 
out the worst traits, especially of James.  Without the tempering of 
adversity, if you are right and the WW sees Nature as predominant, 
then Harry would have become a soft little weenie who wouldn't be 
able to handle his destiny.

A final thought on Harry's placement is that the Dursleys are his 
only living blood relations.  It is common in most societies to try 
and place an orphaned child with relatives whenever possible.  It is 
expected that they will have a greater love for a child of their own 
blood and will be more likely to raise him as part of the family, 
because he is.  Petunia did indeed raise Harry like a part of her 
family, only he was the part of her family that she despised or 
envied or both, and her hatred and/or anger comes out at every turn.

Dumbledore was right, in the end, to place Harry with his relations.  
He may not have had a choice if the WW follows our practices of 
placing a child with relatives, but whatever the reason, Harry became 
stronger because of his time with the Dursleys.

Interesting points, Draeconin!

Ceridwen.