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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 178888

> Jen: The difference is I don't accept the idea of house elves as 
> natural slaves. The elves read as victims of learned helplessness 
> brought about by the enchantment forcing them to self-punish for 
> generations.  When Dumbledore said "Kreacher is what he has been made 
> by wizards" in OOTP, I took that literally, that the forced nature of 
> self-punishment at even the hint of disobedience had finally and 
> completely enslaved the house elves when Harry came to know them.  
> It's the negative reinforcement of Pavlov's dog taken to the 
> extreme.  So by the time the storyline made it to DH and the sickness 
> of the enchantment, well it made complete sense to me as the heart of 
> the elf storyline. 

a_svirn:
Yes, that's how I saw it too. But obviously I was wrong, since
Hermione gave up her crusade.  She neither does nor even *says*
anything about lifting the enchantment. Presumably, it means that
self- punishment is not forced and there has never been any
enchantments imposed on the elves. It's just what they are and what
they do.  There is no other way to account on Hermione's (and everyone
else's) silence on the subject.  Oh, she is still appalled by all this
(who wouldn't be?), but there is no indication that she is going to
*do* anything about it. 

> Jen: 
> So I wasn't saying that Rowling created slaves to have a storyline 
> about social activism, but that social activism offers a framework in 
> which to explore a seemingly intractable social problem.  Where does 
> one start?  At first Hermione thought you started with a mass freeing 
> because that's the ultimate goal right, no more slaves.  Makes sense 
> that it should be as easy as that; if something's wrong it should go 
> away.  But with no support from other activists, the MOM or even the 
> house elves themselves, that turned out to be a failed proposition.  
> I thought Hermione got to the point where the tide could turn when 
> recognizing that stopping the self-abuse was the first step in the 
> process of changing the lot of the house elves.  <snip>

a_svirn:
When and what did do anything in the last two books to stop their self
abuse? She did no such thing. She hasn't done a thing to improve
Kreacher's lot. Kreacher's lot is exactly as it was – Harry still owns
him and still makes use of him. And Harry never was a cruel master to
begin with: he might have loathed his slave, but he never abused him.
Granted, he stopped loath Kreacher, but Hermione can't claim credit
for that. It was Kreacher's story that made the difference. What
Hermione did do, Jen, she used her newfound insight in the elvish
nature and psychology to help her slave-owning friend to convert an
unhappy, rebellious and potentially dangerous slave into happy, loyal
and obedient one. That's what her social activism came to. She changed
sides.