a sandwich

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 178832

> Magpie:
> Yes, what's complicated is that the question of what good it would do 
> to free the House Elves isn't the question. I think most of us who 
> are puzzled and disturbed by the whole thing basically agree that in 
> the WW freeing the House Elves would do more harm than good. 

<snip> Besides that, you've got the regular response of many 21st 
> century readers, which is that owning a slave is a bit disturbing, 
> especially in a book about treating people with respect even if 
> they're different from you. 

Pippin:
Of course slavery is counter-cultural to the 20th/21st century West,
which is why Hermione finds its existence in the WW so hard to accept.  
The goblins' ideas about property ownership are also 
counter-cultural. But to see the goblin side of things is comfortably
anti-Imperialist, while to see the House Elves' side is not. JKR is
demonstrating the biases the leftist outlook brings to the table,
not because she's anti-leftist, IMO,  but because it was leftists like 
herself she was planning to reach. 

The Elves are different than us. They mostly don't like to work for wages 
and they mostly don't mind being owned. The goblins too have 
different ideas about the uses of money and different concepts of 
ownership. But being pro-Goblin flatters our anti-Imperialist
notions, and we want them to be right, while being pro-House Elf
seems to put us on the same side as Simon Legree. But of
course despite some superficial similarities, wizards are not antebellum
slave owners any more than Goblins are American Indians.

Since no nineteenth century slave owners are going to be reading
the books, I think whether they would be happy to identify with
the wizard slave owners is irrelevant. But it would be difficult for
anyone with normal sympathies to identify with making House
Elves punish themselves. That is never shown as a moral practice
and it is intrinsic to House Elf slavery, along with the fact, mentioned
by Ron in CoS, that House Elves can usually  only use their magic with
their owner's permission. We see what happens to magical creatures
who can't use their magic, so that is a powerful incentive too. 

Even if some idiot thought that  House Elf style slavery would be a 
good idea in RL, duplicating its conditions is as far beyond our capabilities 
as creating Eloi and Morlocks. But real people can be conditioned to 
accept slavery to some extent. That is an inconvenient truth which in 
no way makes slavery more palatable, but does make it harder to get 
rid of.  JKR was brave to recognize that in her books, IMO.

The point of Hermione's storyline, I think,  is that well-meaning solutions 
which are imposed without considering the fact that people do survive
under slavery, (and other horrifying conditions) and may not want to 
be patronized or treated as helpless, are part of the problem.

Magpie:
 This is also why I see no hint that JKR's really 
> showing us the temptation of slavery here, since there's no hint at 
> all that owning slaves could be corruptive to one's character. 

Pippin:
Much of wizard-kind has ceased to see the Elves' being forced to
punish themselves, or not being allowed to use magic without their
masters' permission as anything terrible. To that extent their
moral sense has been corrupted.  

Pippin