Old, old problem.

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 150978

Draeconin:
> Quite correct. But I don't doubt Harry would have welcomed *any* 
sort
> of change to what he had to endure. Do you? It would have taken time
> to adjust, but very little, imo.

Ceridwen:
If children and the elderly can be equated at all in their 
vulnerability and in certain types of health risks, then it has been 
proven that moving an elderly person speeds death.  Why would it not 
speed emotional death for the child?

Draeconin:
> I'm sorry, but you consider the Dursleys a 'stable environment'?

Ceridwen:
Yes.  Stable means not subject to extreme change; consistent, 
dependable.  You can depend on the Dursleys not to change.  They have 
remained married in a time when divorce is trendy in some segments of 
society.  They remain steadfastly against the odd or unfamiliar, 
including the WW.  Vernon goes to his job every work day, and brings 
home a paycheck every week or two weeks, depending on his company's 
policies.  They have been in the same home for at least sixteen years 
as of the end of HBP.  They haven't even shown enough instability to 
change the number of children they can claim as dependents.

Draeconin:
> True, but it would have taken little to verify each member of a
> family, especially if they started with an OoP member. (There would 
be
> far more than are ever mentioned.)

Ceridwen:
I disagree.  We have already seen deception (Crouch) and outright 
rebellion (Sirius).  We may have seen another case of rebellion, 
depending on what you think of Percy Weasley.  And if the Weasleys 
can have a potential loose cannon of a close relation, anybody can.

We have also seen that the old families are all related.  The 
Weasleys are related to the Blacks in some way.  As are the Potters, 
as are the Longbottoms.  Should they leave Harry at home?  Or not 
announce his arrival?  Dumbledore did the best he could.  Period.

Draeconin:
> But you're only looking at one facet of James' character.  He was a
> Marauder - a prankster, rule breaker, etc, which implies 
headstrong, 
> out of control, and so on.

Ceridwen:
I'm feeling lazy, since I need to rush off in a few minutes to look 
for meteors.  But there was a thread not too long ago, you can use 
the search feature and cross your fingers that Yahoo!Mort is feeling 
generous, to look it up.  It is all about James's shortcomings to the 
point that Lily called him a 'toerag'.  So, been there, done that.  
And *soooooo* tired of it!

Draeconin: 
> IMO, she probably was a *very* admirable person.  But if Dumbledore 
is
> looking at Harry as the weapon that will one day destroy Voldemort,
> he's going to want someone who will follow orders without question.

Ceridwen:
I am even more interested in where you get your ideas of the 
military.  People are not weapons.  This is not Rambo or Soldier.  
Harry's value is as a soldier, not a weapon.  And, weapons do not 
follow orders.  Weapons are not sentient.  They are neutral.  They 
only work when soldiers/sailors/Marines/Airmen activate them.  Or are 
you suggesting that Ginny start pushing Harry's buttons?  *g*

Draeconin:
> Not that strongly, but that's the general idea. Controllable, but
> still able to go to war.  That's one of the first things they do 
when
> you join the military: take away your individuality - make you a 
part
> of a unit rather than be your own person.  This would have been
> Dumbledore's method of doing that.

Ceridwen:
Odd.  I was in the military.  I haven't lost my personality.  There 
is reconditioning, the 'Total Institution', but you do not lose your 
personality.  And there are plenty of strong personalities - strong 
individuals - in the military.  Again, this is not Rambo or Soldier.  
This is real life.

Draeconin:
> Yes, well gratitude is a strong emotion that might lead Harry to
> easily give his loyalty, isn't it?

Ceridwen:
Easily give loyalty.  No.  He does, but as you keep saying, that was 
never guaranteed.  A child raised in these conditions with the intent 
of making him so beholding to his 'rescuers' that he vows to do 
anything, including kill himself for them, is not a given.  Yet 
another thread you might be interested in concerns the orphan's usual 
place in a story.  Harry is not like the traditional orphan hero, he 
fights against that stereotype, including against being a fawning 
sychophant to his 'saviours'.

Draeconin:
> It's not? Funny - I still hear it all the time. But we're also 
talking
> about the UK and a society about a hundred years behind the modern
> Muggle world.

Ceridwen:
Pop psychologists on TV like to talk about it.  By taking the side of 
Nurture, they sound so nice and fluffy.  Check their ads.  They're in 
it for the money.

Draeconin:
> Ah, you're talking about the scientific and intelligentsia 
communities
> - not the common person on the street.  I'll grant you that 
attitudes
> are changing, but not that quickly.

Ceridwen:
'Trickle-down' isn't glacial melt.  We're not talking Snowball Earth 
here.  I knew about the NvN debate long before I took Sociology.  I'm 
probably the typical woman on the street, so I don't buy that.

Draeconin:
> Ah, but which would they think more influential?  It seems to me 
they
> still put a great emphasis on blood (inheritance). 

Ceridwen:
Yes, they do.  So do a lot of people now.  Family is closer and more 
important than neighbors in most cases, neighbors are more important 
than people out of the area and so on.  But the NvN debate a hundred 
years ago, since that was your figure, was at the midpoint of both 
being in some way influential.  We're back to that again.

Draeconin:
> Big chance to take, isn't it?

Ceridwen:
As big a chance as hoping Harry will lick the mud from Dumbledore's 
boots.

Draeconin:
> But here you're making my point. Thank you. *grin*

Ceridwen:
And again, where is the guarantee that Harry will not think he sees 
what you see and join Voldemort instead?  If, being a fighter, he 
thought that Dumbledore purposely stuck him in the worst environment 
he could, why would he give his allegiance to Dumbledore?  That 
doesn't make any sense.

Draeconin:
> If I recall aright, they took Harry in because they were bribed.
> Dumbledore promised to cover Harry's expenses. Well, we can see that
> Harry didn't get the benefit of that.

Ceridwen:
You do not recall 'aright'.  Canon for Dumbledore offering to pay?  
Or is this fanfic contamination?  *Harry* has the means to pay, but 
as far as I know, he hasn't.  See Vernon's ears perking up at Harry's 
inheritance.

Draeconin:
> Again, you make my point.  Harry's placement with the Dursleys was 
NOT
> so much for *his* good, but for Dumbledore's plans.

Ceridwen:
I do not attribute Harry's strength to manipulation by Dumbledore.  I 
said that Dumbledore probably had no choice, given, as you said, the 
emphasis on blood (inheritance).  Petunia Evans Dursley is Harry's 
blood aunt.  If there was some way for him to live with Sirius (in 
Azkaban, no less), the Dursleys were still a better bet because of 
covert Voldemort supporters, who are still around, and people who 
would try and use Harry for everything from campaign fodder to 
stumping for whiter teeth.  Think of what Umbridge would have done to 
a toddler Harry, for instance, and then recall that she is probably 
not the only one like her in the WW.  But, since the WW is a hundred 
years behind the times and obsessed by blood (inheritance), then 
blood will trump a loving environment every time.  So, if Dumbledore 
hadn't gone ahead and put the blood protection in place, the WW would 
have stuffed him there anyway, but without the blood protection 
enhancements, since they all belived that Voldemort was finished.

Ceridwen.