DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 164350

> > Carol, who is primarily concerned with the dangers of arrogance
and overconfidence for the boy destined to face Voldemort, dangers
that only Dumbledore fully understands
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But, do you really think the *Dursleys* were the only way to prevent 
> Harry from becoming an arrogant menace?  If Dumbledore merely wanted 
> Harry to not grow up with the fame he had in the WW, he could have sent 
> Harry to Mrs. Figg.

Carol responds:
I didn't mention the Dursleys. I was talking about Dumbledore's
secondary motive, the one he gave McGonagall, about protecting Harry
from the dangers of growing up as the (supposed) child prodigy who
defeated the Dark Lord. We're not talking about just any orphan or
just any situation. Of course, love is better than abuse or neglect,
however much Harry actually benefited by learning to think for
himself, elude his abusers, etc. But Harry is not just any child, and
I'm not talking about Weapon!Harry, who will eventually defeat the
Dark Lord. I'm talking about the special dangers that Harry alone
faced as the child that Voldemort, and therefore his most loyal
minions (at least four of whom were still at large at that time),
wanted dead. 

So, IMO, it itsn't just a matter of protecting Harry from Voldemort
and the DEs, although of course that DD's primary concern. It's
protecting Harry from thinking too highly of himself and getting a
false sense of his powers and abilities ("I vaporized Voldemort when I
was one. I'm the Boy Who Lived! I can bring him down any time I want
to.") an arrogant Harry is a Harry in great danger of being dead
before he knows everything he needs to know about his past and
Voldemort's and about his own abilities and limitations. Dumbledore
must have known that James had a high opinion of himself. He can't
afford to let Harry grow up with a similar view, for Harry's own sake
as much as the WWs. So any comparison with Hermione or Ron or any
other child growing up in a loving home is beside the point. Love
alone won't protect Harry and could even be dangerous. The blood
protection protects Harry from Voldemort and the DEs; keeping him with
his Muggle relatives protects him from himself.

Now granted, having Figgy raise him would have been ideal in terms of
a knowledgeable guardian who would not abuse him, but even she would
have told him who he was and why he was with her. Imagine Harry at
four asking, "Mrs. Figg, what happened to my parents?" and Figgy
answering, "Well, Harry, I know it will sound like I'm making this up,
but a Dark Wizard killed them. But you can't tell anybody because
nobody will believe you." "Why did he try to kill them?" "Well, they
were a witch and a wizard and they were trying to stop him from taking
over." (Figgy wouldn't know about the Prophecy.) "Oh. And how did I
get this scar?" "Well, erm, the Dark Wizard tried to kill you, too,
but for some reason you lived and the Dark Wizard was blown to bits."
"I blew up a Dark Wizard?" "Well, no, but the Killing Curse bounced
off of you and killed him. You're a wizard, too, Harry."

If he's with Figgy, living as a Muggle and (eventually) going to a
Muggle school, he won't be able to talk to anybody except Figgy about
himself or his parents or You Know Who. Most likely, he'll start to
think that she's batty (which, BTW, is the same thing that would have
happened if Petunia had told him the truth, which is no doubt why she
made of the story of the car accident that Hagrid got so upset about).
Or he'd believe the story and start having delusions about himself as
some sort of superhero. The school counselors would have a field day
with him. In a WW context, that inflated view of himself would be fed
by the adulation of every wizard he met (assuming that he didn't meet
any Dark ones, who would have other ideas). 

So while Figgy would have made a decent guardian, she wouldn't have
been able to protect him from confusion and/or arrogance. Nor does she
have any magic powers to protect him, just a limited knowledge of the
events in the WW and a loyalty to Dumbledore. The Dursleys, whose
limitations as guardians DD could not possibly know (McGonagall
doesn't explain why she considers them "the worst sort of Muggles")
can provide both the essential blood protection and, theoretically, an
ordinary life in which Harry will not be exposed prematurely to fame
and praise for a heroic deed he didn't even perform. 

"Famous before he can walk and talk." Of course that would go to his
head! Dumbledore assumes (wrongly) that the Dursleys, being Harry's
relatives, will take pity on the poor orphan and love him. He assumes
(rightly) that growing up away from the WW will be good for Harry, who
comes to Hogwarts wide-eyed and innocent rather than cocky and
arrogant. And, of course, he knows that only the Dursleys can provide
the blood protection.

(BTW, and I'm not defending the Dursleys, Harry didn't *live* in a
broom cupboard. He only slept there from the time he was about five
until just after his eleventh birthday. Nor do I see how the Dursleys
could have kept him there for a month during the school year as SS/PS,
with its fairytale atmosphere, suggests. The school authorities would
have come to investigate. Just a sidenote of no importance to my main
argument.)

Carol, who is *not* arguing that abuse builds character (though bad
things sometimes have good consequences), only that the adulation of
the WW, especially in his guardians, would have been dangerous for
Harry (as would being seen in public in the WW while the Lestranges
and Barty Jr. were at large)