Old, old problem.

[Shamyn D. W.]

No: HPFGUIDX 150969

> Carol responds:
> Hi, Shamyn, and welcome to the group. 

Draeconin:
Thank you.

> 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.

Draeconin:
I see. So neglect, 'Harry Hunting', and psychological and emotional
abuse are nothing worth doing anything about. *skeptical raised eyebrow*

> 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).

Draeconin:
To a much lesser extent, imo. But with the various sorts of wards
available, Harry wouldn't have needed to be kept indoors.

> 
> 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), 

Draeconin:
I didn't say that Harry was timid; I said that result was often found
in that sort of environment - a consideration that Dumbledore may have
taken into account. But with the sort of character he expected Harry
to have, the result wouldn't be that severe.  IMO, it was still a
ruthless act.

> Harry, fortunately, isn't James. He has his faults, being human, but
> arrogance--a fatal overconfidence--is not one of them.

Draeconin:
So you're saying it was okay for Dumbledore to do it, because it did
what Dumbledore wanted?

> I disagree that abuse, especially the level of abuse engaged in by the
> Dursleys, always makes children timid,

Draeconin:
I said 'often' - not 'always'. And there's usually permanent
psychological effects - although I'm not sure Dumbledore would have
known that last.

> and in any case, Harry had defenses that other children didn't have.

Draeconin:
Dumbledore knew that when Harry was just one year old?

> What Harry developed...(etc.) <snip> 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.

Draeconin:
Please look at the type of person it would take to do that. Rather
cold, manipulative and calculating, rather than being "the epitome of
goodness", etc.  That's my point.  

Now, I won't argue against Dumbledore *maybe* having developed
something of a consciense before Harry started Hogwarts (which would
explain why Harry's magical education wasn't pushed more), but he
still manipulates Harry when he deems it necessary.

 Draeconin