Lack of Slytherins banner in ROR /House Elf Question

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 178771

> > Allie again:
> > 
> > It's not a statement that
> > all Slytherins are evil. It just says, "No Slytherins live here."
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > Which means, at best, that Slytherins are not opposing Voldemort 
> and 
> > are maybe not all evil but are not good in this universe. 
The "true 
> > Hogwarts" is in that room, and Slytherins aren't a part of it.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Eh, NO. Not ALL of true Hogwarts is in that room and Slytherins 
> **are** a part of it. 

Magpie:
I think the symbolism is pretty powerful there. The school has been 
taken over by bad guys, but Neville has worked out a room for the 
refugees who oppose them and are oppressed by them. The fact that 
it's only three houses very much says to me that the "true" Hogwarts 
is in this room, the kids who oppose this regime, and Slytherin is 
obviously not there. I know there are some Slytherins in other roles 
in the fight. That doesn't change the kids at Hogwarts in that scene 
for me, and it's so glaring it seems weird to work around it. She 
could have easily just said that the room had the house banners in 
there too to indicate that it was a school inside the school. 
Instead she made clear that this was the room of the opposition to 
the false leadership of the school. Even if Slytherins aren't all 
the enemy, they need excuses and exceptions--they don't just stand 
with the others.

zgirnius:
Hermione in GoF and OotP was always bringing up nothing BUT House
Elves being freed. And her heart was in the right place, but she was
going about it wrong. 

Magpie:
Now she's not going about it *at all.* Her heart is still "in the 
right place" presumably, being sickened by Kreacher punishing 
himself, but she's no longer telling anybody to free anybody. She 
just tells Harry to be a good master.


zgirnius:
We were shown in GoF the plight of an elf who
is freed against her wishes. It was not a good thing. Winky was less
happy, less productive,just...less. Why? Because freedom was
something wizards did to her, without consulting her or respecting
her wishes. The real solution is to first have elves want to be free,
and then free them.

Magpie:
That's your solution, perhaps, but Hermione says no such thing. Nor 
are we ever told that Winky is upset about being free *only because 
Wizards did it to her.* She herself says it's an inherent disgrace. 
Of course if she were Dobby and wanted to be free she wouldn't be 
upset about it, but to her that's like saying "if you were insane 
you wouldn't realize how awful this is!" Hermione goes from 
frantically trying to free elves against their will to not 
protesting at all when her friend inherits one or encouraging him to 
free him, but rather starts telling him to treat his slave nicely 
and never mentions SPEW again. Harry already frees Elves who want to 
be free, that's not the problem. Hermione isn't doing anything in 
the way of re-educating or counter-brain-washing Kreacher into being 
more like Dobby, nor do we see her doing that to other elves.

zgirnius:
Could you explain, please, which people who were kind to them the
Hogwarts House Elves were being loyal to, when they joined in the
fight? They are described as being led by Kreacher, who is shouting
about the defender of Hosue Elves (Reg, I presume) and fighting the
Dark Lord. I have already conceded Kreacher if you want him to be
acting only out of loyalty to poor, dead Regulus - why are the rest
of them there?

Magpie:
The Hogwarts Elves are treated well at Hogwarts. This is their home 
and they take pride in it and defend it. I would have always assumed 
they'd have joined in the battle if they were brave enough to do so. 
It's not like it's suggested that after the battle they're sitting 
down discussing their new terms of employment because they fought 
for their freedom. Voldemort is the enemy of their masters at 
Hogwarts. I don't think House Elves joining in the battle when their 
place is being taken over automatically links them to understanding 
and agreeing with the various political ideas of their masters. I 
*thought* that was the case with Kreacher, but it wasn't as per DH.

zgirnius:
Hermione marrying a totally impoverished, and less smart, and less
ambitious, and less magically talented Ron, and having babies, seems
to call for someone in that family to have a career. Food being an
exception to Gamp's law, and all, and there being no mention of 
Lupin-like marks of poverty affecting her, her husband, or her kids. 
And how did Ron get that car?

Anyway, the canon we do have is Hermione wanting a career (leafing
through numerous pamphlets in OotP) and wanting to do some good in
the world (DH, in her conversation with Scrimgeour). 

Magpie:
As I said, Hermione could be the Israeli Prime Minister as far as I 
know. I didn't claim that she had no job whatsoever. I said that in 
the snapshot of the future we're shown Hermione's job doesn't rate a 
mention because that doesn't matter to the story. The happy ending 
is that she has kids with funny names with Ron and they know Harry's 
kids and Lupin's kid and maybe they'll marry even more children of 
people we know. The domestic is what's important, not changing any 
particular situation in the world.

zgirnius:
There are circumstances in which Harry must act. For example, if
Harry's house is on fire, Kreacher probably still needs Harry's
permission to leave it. (E. g. Winky was having difficulty running
during the DE attack in GoF, because Crouch's orders to her had nto
covered that contingency).

Magpie:
She has changed her views. She says nothing any more about how 
anyone "must act" to free anyone, just that they "must act" as a 
responsible slave owner. I don't think Kreacher needing Harry's 
permission to leave the house in case of fire compares to Harry 
having to be waited on by Kreacher. 

Your argument here is perfectly valid, but it's not Hermione's re: 
House Elves in general in GoF and OotP. In those books House Elves 
need to be freed, period. Kreacher is a special case at first, 
perhaps, because of the danger he poses, but even later she never 
goes back to "free them all!" which would, of course, be a different 
solution to the "you have to tell him to leave the house if it's 
burning" problem. If Kreacher is free he doesn't have to ask 
permission to leave the house. (Not that I think he necessarily does 
anyway. How does Kreacher get to Hogwarts in DH since Harry left him 
at Grimmauld Place? If he's not under orders from Harry to stay in 
the House until he says otherwise I don't think he'd have to stay 
there even in a fire.)

zgirnius:
Next, consider the time at 12 GP. Other than matters directly
relating to Horcruxes (and, that actually benefited Kreacher, who was
still in the condition of having failed to destroy the locket as
ordered) what orders did Harry give to Kreacher? I recall none.

Magpie:
This is a wonderful defense of House Elf slavery. If Kreacher wants 
to wait on Harry hand and foot and Harry's just eating the stuff he 
puts in front of him, the fact that Kreacher's magically compelled 
to serve him and is his property isn't really like slavery at all 
and really doesn't matter. It's a technicality. Harry's totally not 
being a slave master in the bad way by letting Kreacher serve him. 
House Elf slavery is good. They're lesser beings whose natural state 
is to serve Harry as his natural state is to be served. This is not 
the same as saying "House Elf slavery is awful and they must be 
freed right now and if I had the power to free him I would."

zgirnius:
So when breakfast appeared on the table for the young master, and
Kreacher ordered him to go wash his hands...Harry should go make
himself a second breakfast?

Magpie:
If he was refusing to be waited on by a slave? Yeah, that might be 
what he'd do. And maybe tell him to stop cooking for him. Since he 
sees no reason to do such (it would only hurt Kreacher's feelings, 
right?), indeed there is no reason for him to do so since why 
*shouldn't* Harry be waited on by Kreacher, he doesn't. House Elf 
slaves: Works for Harry!

zgirnius:
Of course, Harry could free Kreacher, but even with the issue of
Kreacher's loyalties apparently resolved, is this really a good idea?
If Kreacher desired it, or to serve a different master, I would
agree. But if it led to the disintegration of his personality a la
Winky...I could not agree it would be the right thing to do.

Magpie:
Probably not a good idea to free him...which is why he's not freeing 
him. This is the whole argument for why for your average House Elf,  
slavery is *good* and *necessary* and they *should not be freed.* 
It's the pro-House Elf slavery argument and it makes great sense and 
works well for everyone involved. It is not a good idea to free 
House Elves.

zgirnius:
The misery of the three slave figures we meet up close and personal
seems a big downside, to me.

Magpie:
Dobby is miserable with his bad masters and wants to be free, so he 
is freed. Problem solved for Dobby the oddity. Dobby is in no way 
any sort of example for why House Elves in general should be freed, 
because they don't agree with him. Winky was made miserable by being 
freed--it wasn't her slavery that made her miserable, but the taking 
away of her slavery. Kreacher, too, was not made miserable by being 
a slave. He was made miserable by a bad master. So if a House Elf 
doesn't want to be freed (which would be almost all of them), being 
a slave to a worthy master is a perfectly good solution-the one 
Harry and Kreacher agree on. The magical spells on House Elves are 
pretty harsh, but that's not the fault of their masters that we know 
of. Hey, their masters are just easing their suffering by being 
served by them. Perfectly fine relationship there, right? If every 
House Elf could be owned by somebody as worthy as Harry, that would 
be great.

-m