Old, old problem.

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 150960

Shamyn/Draeconin wrote:
<snip> 
> Beyond JKR's furthering of her story, why was Harry placed with the
> Dursleys, who hated magic and magic users, in the first place?
> 
> 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.
> 
> So again we come back to the question: Why was Harry placed with
magic-hating Muggles?  
> 
> Well, there *is* a possibility, although I don't doubt that most
will dislike it intensely.  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. <snip>
> 
> 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?
> 
> Even one of his strongest supporters, Minerva McGonagall, says that
> the Dursleys are "the worst sort of Muggles" and was against putting
> Harry there, although she bowed to Albus' authority in the matter.

Carol responds:
Hi, Shamyn, and welcome to the group. If it's any consolation, 99
percent of us start out asking a question that's been asked before,
and yours is posed from an unusual angle.

I'll start off by saying that I agree with other posters that the
blood protection was the most powerful and potent protection that
Dumbledore could give Harry. I also think that while it cannot make
the Dursleys love him or prevent them from neglecting him, making him
sleep in a broom cupboard, or psychologically abusing him, IMO, either
it or the blood protection in his veins protects him from serious
*physical* abuse while he's in that house: Aunt Petunia's frying pan
misses his head and Uncle Vernon receives some sort of electric shock
when he tries to choke Harry. In addition, I'm sure that the house is
being watched by Mrs. Figg, at least, and if she had any indication
that Harry was being seriously abused (e.g., beaten with a clothes
hanger), she would have notified Dumbledore instantly.

As Steve has pointed out, Harry is much safer hidden among the Muggles
than he would have been in a world where every child knows his name.
It would have been impossible to keep him hidden (and if the wizarding
family had tried to keep him hidden indoors all the time, that would
have been abuse, too).

I do agree that Dumbledore may have had a secondary consideration in
not wanting Harry to grow up like James, a "pampered little prince"
with a high opinion of himself, his abilities, and his destiny. Much
better that he grow up humble (*not* timid), not knowing that he's
famous, neither fearing his destiny nor certain of his power and
potential to defeat Voldemort. Just imagine James with more than his
quick reflexes and cleverness to be arrogant about--James as the Boy
Who Lived. The WW would have been doomed through his arrogance. But 
Harry, fortunately, isn't James. He has his faults, being human, but
arrogance--a fatal overconfidence--is not one of them.

I disagree that abuse, especially the level of abuse engaged in by the
Dursleys, always makes children timid, and in any case, Harry had
defenses that other children didn't have. He could (accidentally)
shrink that horrible sweater, grow his hair back, even find himself 
on a rooftop at school when the other boys bullied him. What Harry
developed is what children born in log cabins often developed--the
ability to endure hardship without complaint. And he learned through
them, and later through Snape, how to deal with bullying--essential
preparation for the much worse fate he would endure at Voldemort's
hands if he was not ready. So, no, I absolutely do not agree that
Dumbledore was trying to make him timid. He wanted him (IMO) to be
humble, resourceful, and resilient--as he would have to be to face
Voldemort. Put another way, he wanted to bring out the best of
whatever qualities Harry inherited from James and Lily, not the worst.

I meant to mention that I think DD had more than the Prophecy to go
on. He knew, of course, that Bellatrix was still at large. So, at that
time, was Antonin Dolohov, the  murderer of the Prewitts, and many
other evil Death Eaters "nearly as terrible" as Voldemort in DD's
words. But I think he *knew* that Voldemort wasn't dead, that the
Prophecy had *not* been fulfilled (Harry had only been "marked" and
given powers that would eventually enable him to defeat LV), either
because of what he had seen with his mysterious instruments or because
Snape had shown him his Dark Mark (very faint but not completely gone)
or both.

So I agree with other posters that Dumbledore, "the epitome of
goodness," chose the only possible way to protect Harryfrom Voldemort
and the Death Eaters, extending the blood protection created by his
mother's self-sacrifice to the home of his mother's sister. But I
think DD was aware of secondary advantages  as well. When he told
McGonagall that Harry would be better off growing up away from all the
fame and glory, he was not lying. He was just (as usual) telling as
much of the truth as he thought she needed to know.

Carol, who is defending Dumbledore's decision, not the Dursleys'
treatment of Harry