Dumbledore on the Dursleys in OotP (LONG)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 151369


> Alla:
> 
> Yes, we are indeed differ fundamentally. But let me ask you one more 
> question. Even though I don't think that Dumbledore had any right to 
> decide whether Harry's grievances are fair or not, could you point 
> me to any UNFAIR accusations Harry threw at Petunia or Kreacher? Had 
> Kreacher NOT betrayed Sirius? Had Petunia not never loved him?

Pippin:
Dumbledore cuts Harry off when Harry starts to say that Kreacher 
deserved it, and again when he starts to say that Petunia doesn't
give a damn. Those accusations are unfair, IMO. 

I think we agreed that no one deserved to be treated as Kreacher was. 
If you are going to say that Sirius was upset because of how 
Kreacher spoke to Hermione, then isn't it strange that he never
forbade Kreacher to say those things? I'm sorry to say it, but
maybe Hermione's feelings didn't matter to him either. 

Nobody but JKR could say whether treating Kreacher kindly would
have made a difference in the end, but it denigrates Kreacher
to say that it couldn't have. No one gave him a reason to choose 
other than he did. 

No, Petunia does not love Harry. But that's not the same as not
giving a damn about him. She took him in, at risk to her own
family, and she kept him, even when that risk had become  a reality.

You keep saying that Dumbledore has no right to tell Harry these
things. But if he doesn't, who does? Who is going to speak for Petunia
or Kreacher if Dumbledore does not? He is Harry's headmaster, his
guide, his mentor, and yes, his friend, but being a friend does not
mean, IMO, unconditional agreement with positions that you find
morally repugnant.

> 
> Alla:
> <snip>
> Yes, Dumbledore tells Harry that he did not say that Sirius deserved 
> to die, but just in the previous paragraph he implies precisely 
> that, IMO. That Sirius did not make Kreacher's life easier and that 
> is why Kreacher did what he did.


Pippin:
Ohhh. You are reading Dumbledore's words as if "we" and "wizards" 
were code for "Sirius", but Dumbledore is emphatically saying that he
doesn't mean that at all. "Wizards" made Kreacher what he is. "We" 
have abused and mistreated our fellow creatures for too long and
"we" are reaping our reward. 

Sirius did *not* make Kreacher what he is. But Dumbledore says
reluctantly ("it must be admitted") that he never tried to make it
possible for Kreacher to become something else. Sirius did *not*
deserve to die. But I am afraid wizardkind deserved to lose him.


That is the "reward" that Dumbledore refers to, IMO. It was cruel,
but who ever said that Karma was kind?

I understand why you think that Dumbledore should not have
tried to make this a teachable moment. But I agree with Steve,
he just couldn't excuse himself another time. To quote Susan
Cooper again, if once you have failed a great trust, you dare not
let yourself be trusted again, because to fail again would be the
end of the world. 

> Alla:
> 
> Harry himself says so. I see no reasons in this situation to assume 
> that he lies. To me it is just common sense. Petunia is the only 
> mother figure he knew for ten years. I think it would be strange if 
> the child would not want the love from mother figure, no matter how 
> horribly she treated him.

Pippin:
Goodness me! Are we reading the same books?

 '"They're your family, after all, and I'm sure you are fond of one another 
--er--*very* deep down."

 It didn't occur to Harry to put Fudge right.
-- PoA. 

It's not something that gets talked about a lot, but babies  do reject
their caregivers sometimes, even caregivers that love them, more
often than you might think.

I see no reason to assume that there was ever any desire or instinct
on Harry's part to bond with Petunia at all. There was certainly nothing
by the time he was thirteen.

Pippin