God for Harry, England, and a Sandwich

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 178851

---  "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> Steve:
> > People seemed up in arms over the idea that after a long 
> > night, great stress and strife, little sleep and little 
> > food, Harry is tired and hungry. Well,(he says 
> > sarcastically) if that isn't a surprise.
> 
> Magpie:
> No they aren't. They're just commenting on the last line 
> calling attention to Harry owning a slave. Whether or not 
> he actually asked him for the sandwich or not isn't really
> an issue--Nobody's said Harry's bad for being tired and 
> hungry. 
> 

bboyminn:

There is a certain preceived ...hummm...bitterness???... to 
you're response of such that I can't tell if you are being 
serious or sarcastic, or perhaps a blend of both. 

Here is my point, the last line IS NOT about Harry owning
a slave, nor is it intended to call attention to Harry owning
a slave. It is about a hungry boy wanting a sandwich and
speculating on possible ways to get one. People are objecting
to Harry 'wondering if /Kreacher/ would bring him a sandwich'. 

And that is one valid way to get a sandwich. Yet, and I 
think this is very relevant, it is unlikely that Harry 
actually followed through on that thought. Again, thoughts
are not crimes, yet that is exactly what I see people
implying; that it is a crime that Harry /thought/ of asking
Kreacher to get him a sandwich. 

Further, thinking of Kreacher, is not a crime because that
is what Kreacher does, he brings food to the table. It is
very reasonable to make a logical association between 
Kreacher and food. 

I will concede that IF Harry DID ask Kreacher then he was
probably not being very sensitive. Further, if Harry did
ask, I certainly don't think it would have been in the form
of 'Kreacher I order you to bring me a sandwich', knowing
Harry, it would have more likely been, 'Kreacher, if you 
can, would you bring me a sandwich when it's convenient'. 

> Steve:
> > As to the whole concept of Kreacher, Harry, and slavery, I
> > think people are taking an unrealistically simplistic view
> > of the situation. Harry does not like owning a slave, but
> > a slave was forced upon him, and he has to deal with it.
> 
> Magpie:
> I think it is simplistic and you and others are describing 
> why: Harry does want to own a slave at all. ... He'd let him
> go if only Kreacher didn't need him to be his master, ...

bboyminn:

Yes, exactly. (again...confused...serious or sarcastic?)
 
> Steve:
> > It seems completely unrealistic to think that the house
> > elf problem could be completely resolved by the end of 
> > the books. JKR said in an interview that Hermoine went
> > to work in Dept. of Magical Law, and greatly expanded 
> > the right of House Elves and other magical creatures. 
> > ... What more could we expect? 
> 
> Magpie:
> Nothing. Who needs change, after all? The House Elves don't,
> ...
> 
> Steve: 
> > As to Harry and Kreacher, Kreacher is only a slave if
> > Harry treats him like property. If Harry is willing to
> > allow Kreacher to come and go as he pleases, and Kreacher
> > chooses to stay, how is that slavery? ...
> 
> Magpie:
> It's slavery because Harry owns him as property and for all
> the reasons House Elf slavery works. You can treat your 
> slave with kindness and respect and still have him be your 
> slave. House Elves *want* to be slaves as long as they accept
> you as their master. 
> 

bboyminn:

Well, again, I can't tell the if you are being seriousness or
sarcastic. But there is one very critical point you have to 
accept, House Elves REALLY ARE different than Human Slavery. 

Yes, it's true that human slave owners had a long list of
excuses for slavery, one being that slaves liked being slaves,
but in the case of House Elves that is exactly true and 
correct. House Elves are a race of creatures that live to
server. That is a fact, a fact that does not mirror or
parallel itself in the real world. 

The legend and myth of Helper Elves transends the Harry Potter
books, and in all cases, the 'helper elves' choose to labor on 
behalf of humans; whether it be the tailor's elves or the 
shoemaker's elves or the common Brownie-House-elf. In all cases,
the elves are offended by any effort that acknowledges or 
attempts to reward their effort. 

Elves to not want to be slaves in the traditional human sense,
but they do very much want to serve wizards, and they do it 
with generations of honor and loyalty. And their efforts to
do this far far predate Harry Potter.

It is wizards who have most certainly exploited this nature 
of house elves, and certain most of them have done it in a
self-serving way. But the exploitation by wizards doesn't 
erase the core nature of elves. 
 
> 
> Steve:
> > My point is, that I think playing the Human Slavery card,
> > when discussing elves is misguided. 
> 
> Magpie:
> JKR did it. But yes, real humans are not House Elves so 
> it's inaccurate to project the feelings and thoughts enslaved
> humans would have onto House Elves. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Yes, JKR said House-Elves were symbolic of slavery, but
symbols are not reality; a symbol of the sun is not the sun.
House-elves symbolize something that is similar to the plight 
of human slaves, and equal, or even more, complicated than 
human slavery. I believe that was part of the point. That this
is a problem, but it does not have any easy solution. Freeing 
elves DOES go against their very nature. When freed, they seek
to encumber themselves with a new wizard/elf association. 

They do really by their inherent nature want to serve, and
that is what makes the situation so complicated, that is what
makes it different that human slavery, and that is
the very reason Harry can't just cut Kreacher loose. 

But as I said, knowing Harry, I honestly and truly think
he will try to do the very best by Kreacher that he possible
can given the complication of the circumstances. It is not
as simple as letting Kreacher go. Likely Kreacher would
either put himself into a worse situation, or he would die
of despair. Neither is a good option. Yes, it would be tidy
for Harry, he could wash his hands of Kreacher and make it
somebody else's problem. That's good for Harry, but not
necessarily good for Kreacher. 

And, yes, I am aware that Human Slave owners used similar
arguments, and in reality, there was a small bit of truth in
what they said. But in JKR's case, we are not dealing with
humans who came to their slavery the way humans do. We are
dealing with a very unique non-human species that does have
an inherent desire to serve. 


> Steve:
> > So, knowing Harry, I see no problem with him 'owning'
> > Kreacher, because I assume at some point he will deal with
> > the situation is the best possible way. 
> 
> Magpie:
> If there's no problem to his owning (He does own him. He 
> inherited him.) Kreacher what does he have to deal with at 
> some point in the best possible way? Isn't he already doing
> that? What's missing that people think Harry and Hermione 
> ought to do in the future that we're not told they're doing
> or do?
> 
> -m

bboyminn:

I see no problem with Harry 'owning' Kreacher /BECAUSE/ I feel
confident that Harry will face it and deal with it. 

As to what Harry and Hermione would or should do in the 
future that we are not told, well there are huge gaps in 
their lives that we are not told, and that is because THIS
story is over. THAT is another story altogether. We end in
the present, the future is left to the imagination, and I
and apparently JKR imagine that Harry and Hermione will
pursue this issue for their whole lives gradually expending
their effort to improve the lot of House-Elves and other
magical creatures. Really, what more can they do? No, really?

As to discovering the secrets of the enchantment binding 
house-elves, that to is not this story, that is another story
of its own and while it would be nice to know, it has nothing
to do with Harry defeating Voldemort.

A lot of the so-called unresolved plot points are really
just atmosphere carrying the story forward and fleshing out
the wizard world, but when it comes to the last couple of
books, things need to get focused, and they need to focus
on Harry and Voldemort, which they did.

Not wanting to offend, but I really couldn't tell if your
comments were serious or sarcastic, and consequently wasn't
sure how or if I should respond.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn