Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 162103

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> 
> > From what I'm understanding, both you [Carol] and Ceridwen seem   
> > to feel that Kreacher's mental well-being is dependent upon Harry 
> > giving him chores.
> > <snip>
> > Frankly, I don't understand that view point.
> > <snip>

> >>Carol:
> I don't understand that point of view, either, since it's not at all
> what I'm arguing.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I guess it's statements like the one below that confused me.

> >>Carol:
> As a practical measure, *not* part of Harry's responsibility to
> Kreacher but simple common sense to prevent trouble, Kreacher should
> be given some task that he's capable of doing. He is, after all, a
> house-elf and maybe part of what's wrong with him in OoP is that he
> *doesn't* have any tasks to do.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It still seems to me that you're linking Kreacher being assigned 
chores with his mental well-being.  I don't agree with that.  I think 
the problem with Kreacher in OotP had nothing to do with his lack of 
chores and everything to do with watching his beloved home being torn 
to shreds by the dregs (in his opinion) of the WW.

> >>Carol:
> But I'm not arguing that giving Kreacher work is part of Harry's
> responsibility. I'm only saying that, as the owner of a slave he    
> can't set free, he has the responsibility to treat that slave       
> humanely, with respect and consideration and yet with reasonable    
> restrictions, as he would a child or an employee or any sort of    
> subordinate. Even a pet is generally treated more responsibly than 
> Harry treats Kreacher.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree with you, but I think the lack of responsibility and the lack 
of nobility on Harry's part came at the moment he gave Kreacher a 
task.  Up until that time Harry was treating Kreacher as an enemy 
combatant.  I believe this is how Kreacher saw himself, and I believe 
this lifted Kreacher to the level of equal.  Harry knew Kreacher was 
dangerous, knew he needed to be properly contained, and he acted 
accordingly.  

Instead of contempt (Sirius) and condescension (Hermione), Harry 
treated Kreacher as a thinking being with his own individual views.  
And Harry took those views seriously.  Which was good.  Harry didn't 
expect Kreacher to embrace the "happy house-elf" routine, as Dobby 
did (wasn't the fight about Kreacher bad-mouthing Harry?).  He 
expected Kreacher to be as miserable and resentful as a prisoner of 
war would and should be.  He even expected Kreacher to do his best to 
escape.

IOWs, despite being a slave-owner, Harry didn't act as one.  And he 
didn't treat his slave as a slave.  He treated Kreacher as an equal.  
Someone quite capable of cleaning himself and changing his own 
clothes if and when he so desired.

> >>Carol:
> Harry needs to heed Dumbledore's words about treating Kreacher "with
> kindness and respect" (OoP Am. ed. 832). *That* is Harry's
> responsibility, and that it what he has so far failed to do.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, see I think Harry came closer to following Dumbledore's advice 
in merely keeping Kreacher prisoner.  It's when he decides to make 
use of his slave that Harry falls down, IMO.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I'm just not sure why Harry needs to take on the role of slave 
> > owner.  Wouldn't a guard for a prisoner of war be enough?  And a
> > tiny bit more noble?
 
> >>Carol:
> How so?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Because a prisoner of war is an equal.  A slave is not.  By first 
treating Kreacher as a prisoner, Harry acknowledges Kreacher's view 
points and ability to think for himself.  By turning around and 
treating Kreacher as a slave, Harry negates Kreacher's individuality 
and equality.

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> Rather than treating him as a prisoner of war, he should treat him 
> as a person, or personlike being, for whom he is responsible. I     
> think they'd both be much better off if he treated Kreacher as his 
> employee rather than as a prisoner of war--always bearing in mind   
> that Kreacher must be watched as well as treated as house-elves    
> wish to be treated.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But that does so much to *lower* Kreacher.  You're taking away 
Kreacher's ability to think for himself and treating him like an 
animal.

Kreacher doesn't *want* to be Harry's employee.  He *hates* Harry and 
everything he stands for.  By treating him as a prisoner, Harry 
validates Kreacher's ability to think and decide for himself.  

"You hate me, you want my side to fail, and you are dangerous. These 
are your views, they are your own.  So I will keep you prisoner until 
the war is over."
vs.
"Poor, simple creature!  You have no thoughts of your own and no 
ability to form your own opinion.  So I shall mold you into a 
creature I find pleasing."

The first is above board and noble, IMO; the second is sickening.

> >>Ceridwen:
> <snip>
> ...I had hoped to say that it seems that elves have no other option
> than to work as slaves. The suits their nature, whether this nature
> is inborn or enchanted on them. They have no other recourse, no
> place to go where they can get gainful employment to meet their
> needs.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, the way I see it, House-elves enjoy domestic work.  They like to 
cook and clean and seem to take pride in keeping a nice home.  (I 
tend to think Ron's comment that his family can't afford a house-elf 
has more to do with the state of their home than a house-elf 
market.)  And generally, a good domestic can always find a job.

Really, the issue isn't the work IMO (nothing wrong with being a cook 
or housekeeper in my book), but in the lack of equal choice.  A 
wizard may fire a house-elf (give him or her clothes), but a house-
elf cannot quit.  (Remember, Dobby didn't leave the Malfoys.  Harry 
tricked Lucius into firing him.)

I think the house-elf solution is simply give the house-elves to 
ability to quit.  With the threat of a good house-elf being wooed 
away by nicer work conditions (whatever those are to house-elves) I 
think you'd find most wizards doing their best to keep their 
particular house-elf content.

> >>Ceridwen:
> Harry's responsibilities toward Kreacher go beyond making sure he   
> is housed and fed. He also has to consider Kreacher's other options 
> in the world outside of his hereditary employment.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Why?  Do you think Harry is going to keep Kreacher once the war is 
over?  Why wouldn't Harry let Kreacher allow Kreacher to seek work 
with a family he'd actually enjoy working for once the danger is past?

That's part of the reason I think Harry was better off treating 
Kreacher as a prisoner of war.  There's an implied end to the 
imprisonment.  By treating him as a slave, the only end is Kreacher's 
death.  Which seems a bit bleak to me.

Betsy Hp