"Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 178880

> a_svirn:
> This is a very bleak outlook on social activism indeed, for in the 
> last two books Hermione gave up on the house elves liberation 
> altogether and concentrated on making a more responsible 
slave-owner out of Harry. 
> 

Pippin:

Hermione's activism does succeed with the DA, where she tackles
a problem that affects her directly, and enlists the help of experts
like Harry and Rita instead of trying to do it all herself. 

And Kreacher becomes an activist in DH, leading the house-elves
into battle. The battle for elf-rights does not disappear. Instead,
primary responsibility for elf-rights is assumed by an elf, 
as, Rowling implies, it should be.  

I think Hermione's 'zinger' to Scrimgeour in DH is part of the 
explanation for her apparent lack of interest in elf-rights in HBP. 
Unlike him, she was not about to bury herself in legal maneuvering 
while Voldemort was on the rampage. It also shows that she's adopted 
what appears to be Dumbledore's and Arthur's position, that the most 
important thing wizards could do for elf-rights was to keep Voldemort
from taking over. 

There's no denying we saw little improvement in the general
status of house-elves. But thinking about house-elf status as a 
major plot arc can only lead to frustration since no house-elves 
are major characters. The major character concerned is Hermione. 
Looking at it from that point of view, we do have a story with a  
resolution and IMO, a positive moral outlook.

The plot arc is Hermione discovering that her view of Elves and
of how to get wizards interested in helping them is mistaken,
but with the right information and the right tactics she can
accomplish some of her goals.  Here's her original program:  

"Our short-term aims," said Hermione, speaking even more 
loudly than Ron, and acting as though she hadn't heard a word,
 "are to secure house-elves fair wages and working conditions. 
Our long-term aims include changing the law about non-wand 
use, and trying to get an elf into the Department for the Regulation 
and Control of Magical Creatures, because they're shockingly 
underrepresented." -- GoF ch 14

SPEW was problematic from the beginning, as the name 
should tell us. Hermione's activism was based on a false premise:

"[Goblins are] very clever. They're not like house-elves, who
never stick up for themselves." -- Hermione, GoF ch 24

By DH Hermione has discovered that despite their slave status, cute 
names, diminuitive size and imperfect English, house-elves aren't 
helpless little woobies who need wizards to protect them. They
can be clever enough to outwit shrewd wizards like Lucius Malfoy, 
Mundungus and Sirius and to see through Hermione's simple trick.

They *can* stick up for themselves. 

Amusingly,  in DH Hermione talks like she has held this view from the
beginning: "I've said all along that wizards would pay for how
they treat house-elves. Well, Voldemort did...and so did Sirius."
DH, ch 10. 

The story also shows that Hermione's initial tactics were faulty.
Everyone tuned out her harangues about elf-rights except the 
already converted (and Ron, whom we may suspect of ulterior 
motives.)

But we are shown that a live demonstration of how wizard 
treatment leads to elfish misery and rebellion worked. This is 
foreshadowed in HBP when Dumbledore's account of Hokey's fate 
raises more sympathy in Harry for SPEW than all of Hermione's 
lecturing or Dumbledore's own preachments about Kreacher. 
 
By the end of the story, Hermione has learned how to accomplish
one of her original aims for the elves, fairer working conditions. 
She has also been shown that fair wages were  unrealistic as a 
short-term aim -- even Dobby did not want what she would 
consider fair wages.

She taught Harry and Ron the danger and immorality of giving 
orders to elves. Harry, although he knows that Kreacher is going 
to treat any request of his as an order anyway, does phrase what 
he wants as a request, and honors Kreacher with the gift of the 
locket. (Hmmm, it seems that Elves will accept payment as long 
as it isn't offered as such.)  

Harry  went  from treating Kreacher with neglect 
except when he needed a dirty job done (much the way
Petunia treated Harry himself) to concern for him. 

Ron vetoes Harry's  idea of ordering the Elves to fight and
Harry accepts that he was wrong. 

The sandwich, IMO, is meant to parallel Dudley's cup of tea
at the beginning of DH. Harry was unable to conceive that
Dudley would ever want to be nice to him and assumed
that the cup of tea (I started to type 'sandwich')  was a booby
trap. At the end Harry trusts and understands Kreacher as
well as a human can understand a house-elf. He no longer
thinks of him as lying and foul, and the thought of being
brought a sandwich is comforting.

Meanwhile Kreacher learned to admire Harry and even to 
respect his choice of friends. There's no hint in canon
that Kreacher would resent knowing that Harry thought of him
as a sandwich-bringer.  But if he did, he would certainly
let Harry know.  Unlike Dobby, Kreacher has *never* had a
problem speaking ill of his masters. That is what the
HBP fight between Dobby and Kreacher was about. And Harry
has learned that he would be wise to pay attention. 

The reconciliation between enemies that everyone
hoped we would see in DH? We got it. It just wasn't with
a character that most of us thought we'd like for a friend. 
Which was the point, IMO. It's much harder to make peace
when it doesn't seem there will be any advantage in it. 
 
Pippin