Harry's remark about Kreacher WAS: Re: JKR messed up........ no.

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 178606

Magpie wrote:
<snip>
> Regardless, Harry is thinking of himself in that last line. He's
just thinking of having Kreacher make him a sandwich and that brings
in all the baggage that comes from having a slave race and making your
hero an owner of one. Harry's thoughts are about what he wants in that
last sentence. 
>
> I don't see "Maybe I'll have Kreacher fix me a sandwich" as a sign
of his great spiritual awakening or mature growth. I think he just
wants a sandwich and by now asking his slave to make him one is the
thing that comes into his head. He's never been particularly
interested in abusing House Elves. He would have preferred it if
Kreacher had been eager to serve him before, too, I'd guess, but if he
needed something done he just had to tell him to do it. I think he'd
do the same thing now. He's already settled into a smooth
master/servant relationship back in Grimmauld Place long before he "died."
> 
> Asking his now loyal House Elf to do something isn't like asking Ron
to do something, where there'd be some discussion about whether Ron
felt like making him a sandwich and why Harry wasn't making it for 
himself to begin with. Ron's an equal who might be willing to make 
Harry a sandwich as a favor or if Harry gave him something in return,
but Harry probably wouldn't ask him. If Kreacher said stuff like,
"Kreacher is a little worn out right now, maybe Master could skip his
sandwich?" he wouldn't be a House Elf. <snip>

> I didn't say that JKR said that slavery "was good" meaning that she
supports slavery in our world, I said she presented it as a perfectly
acceptable (to Harry) part of the WW. I don't think she's saying 
anything much at all about slavery to anybody--except maybe that it 
can be really cool to have a sentient being who lives to serve you and
would be upset by your not ordering them around so you get to be a
slaveowner and be considered to be treating others well. I don't 
think she's teaching anybody any lessons about the history of how 
slavery was abolished in the US or anything about history at all with
them (and slavery was an important issue at the time of the Civil War 
> and stated as a reason for going for war). In fact, I think one
could argue that creating a slave race who is happier as slaves is
writing history the way many people would want it to have been--people
who wanted slavery to be considered the natural state of the enslaved
race. Nobody's abolishing slavery one way or the other in the WW. 
> 
> In short, I think she just came up with the House Elves as a wholly 
> fictional creation--one that happens to have a lot in common with 
> romantic notions of real world slavery, but is not supposed to be an 
> argument for it. But now that it's done I don't think Harry Potter 
> the slave owner has anything to teach the non-slave owners reading 
> the books about anything on the subject. He's the one who's taken the 
> big step back here in having a slave, and I don't see the House Elves 
> as saying much of anything about the history of slavery in the real 
> world. 
> 
> Lizzyben:
> People have said that the house-elf issue wasn't resolved, but I think
> it was. It was resolved in that last line - the crazy elf who wanted
> freedom has died, the conventional elf that accepted slavery has
> survived, & the hero has accepted his proper role as master and slave
> owner. 
> 
> Magpie:
> That's the way I read the last line too. Everything in its proper 
> place and Harry has his real life back. He can sleep in his own bed 
> at Hogwarts with his friends and have his loyal Elf make him a 
> sandwich. It's Voldemort who wanted social reform (albeit for the 
> worse), not Harry. If Harry met another Dobby who wanted to be free 
> he'd happily free him, just as Dumbledore offered the House Elves at 
> Hogwarts freedom and they rejected it. As a Wizard it's Harry's noble 
> duty to show noblesse oblige. Harry has just returned to the life he 
> was living in Grimmauld Place where Kreacher cooked and cleaned and 
> fawned over everyone and they accepted it as their due and the way 
> things were supposed to be. Harry's doing Kreacher a favor by asking 
> him to do stuff instead of doing it himself. Whether or not she 
> supports slavery in our world--which I highly doubt she does--she's 
> defended and justified it in her fictional world.
> 
> > 
> > Dana:
> > I never thought of House-Elves in regards to slavery and thus I 
> never 
> > perceived Harry wondering if Kreacher would bring him a sandwich as 
> > Harry embracing the role of a proud slave owner. 
> > I think it was supposed to be an indication that Harry now 
> considered 
> > Kreacher as part of his family.
> 
> Magpie:
> The same way he was a part of the Black family--he's the family 
> servant. He's not a Black. Kreacher waits on Harry. He doesn't have 
> an equal relationship. He cooks and cleans for him.
> 
> Dana:
>  Which is not the same thing as 
> > you suggest because if Kreacher wouldn't have wanted to serve Harry 
> > and thus still not acknowledge him as his master, then Harry could 
> > order Kreacher to make him a sandwich but be better off not eating 
> > it, because it would probably contain something that wouldn't be 
> > agreeable for a human being to eat. Just like Kreacher followed 
> > orders to spy on Draco but essentially gave Harry nothing useful in 
> > regards to what Harry wanted to know. 
> 
> Magpie:
> The fact that Kreacher is a better slave when Harry's done something 
> to make Kreacher consider him his rightful master does not make 
> Kreacher no longer a slave. Kreacher had to acknowledge Harry as 
> Master in HBP. Now he likes him being his master. He's still his 
> master. Once Kreacher has accepted Harry as his *rightful* master, 
> all his thoughts become about what's best for Harry. Kreacher no 
> longer has wants of his own. He might sometimes disagree with Harry 
> on what's best for Harry. That's what makes the whole idea such a 
> fantasy--and I would think a bit of a threat to one's character 
> myself.
> 
> Dana:
> > Of course one could argue about the fact if this was specifically 
> > well written to support such an interpretation but I think if you 
> > look at everything that is written about house-elves then it is 
> less 
> > hard to see it like that(IMO). 
> > The house-elves at Hogwarts are appalled not only at Winky for 
> being 
> > disowned by her family but also about Dobby's embracement of 
> freedom. 
> > It is not the house-elves way of living. 
> > When the trio visited the kitchen for the first time all house-
> elves 
> > practically fell over one another to serve the kids to whatever 
> they 
> > wanted. 
> 
> Magpie:
> We're not disagreeing over whether House Elves like to serve. I know 
> they like to serve and that it's in their nature. I know how they 
> show they're displeasure within their abilities when they don't 
> really want to do something. They're born to be slaves. Harry has 
> accepted being master to one of these born slaves. The willing slave 
> who serves out of love is a tempting idea, isn't it? That's what 
> Harry's got now and he knows it. (And I think it's a bit of a stretch 
> to now claim, just because Harry's thinking about having Kreacher 
> make him a sandwich, that it's also in a House Elf's nature to be 
> hurt any time his master lifts a finger for himself--that doesn't 
> always seem to be the case.)
> 
> Dana:
> > The issues surrounding SPEW where, in my opinion, never really 
> about 
> > elf rights or the condemnation of slavery but all about Hermione's 
> > ill attempts to impose her own ideas on what house-elf rights 
> should 
> > be with total disregard to the needs of the elves themselves. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes, because the story here isn't about the abolition of slavery for 
> House Elves. Slavery's fine in this universe when it involves House 
> Elves. As Harry and Hermione both seem fine with in DH.
> 
> Dana:
> > JKR's point was never about slavery but about understanding that 
> > different people or different groups of people have different needs 
> > and you can't just assume that all they ever need is precisely the 
> > same as your own needs in life or even that all of them should 
> accept 
> > change because one person from such a background chooses to life 
> > differently.
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes, but she also created a sentient slave race and eventually made 
> her hero a slave owner. Harry can't "understand" the House Elves 
> needs without accepting his own place as a master of slaves as a 
> member of the superior race, the ones born to be served rather than 
> serve. She's made a form of slavery that actually conforms to things 
> that were claimed about real people (that they were better off being 
> slaves and happier that way). 
> 
> It's understandable that people can find Harry's casual acceptance of 
> his position distasteful even while understanding that House Elves 
> really aren't like people and some how are made to be slaves. You 
> don't have to not get House Elves' nature in order to not like 
> Harry's position in the end. It's hardly "dumping" a slavery issue 
> into it when we're introduced to House Elves via Dobby who actually 
> acts like a human and not an animal because he wants freedom. Then we 
> get Hermione also talking about elves like they're being oppressed by 
> slavery--and JKR I think even said she thought Hermione was right. 
> Later both Harry and Hermione are fine with being waited on by 
> Harry's slave, but can't you see why people would find this version 
> of "respect other peoples' needs" to be a bit distasteful and 
> suspicious given the only way to apply it in the RW? It's one thing 
> for me to respect the right of a Muslim woman to dress herself in a 
> way she thinks shows respect for God, or give anyone the right to 
> stay in an abusive situation. It's quite another for me to believe 
> another woman should correctly be treated as a piece of property 
> because that's what she believes she should be treated as, which is 
> what the House Elves are. Yes it's telling us to respect other 
> peoples' ideas, but it's also telling us to see other people as 
> potentially biologically made to serve us--of course people find it 
> confusing.
> 
Dana:
> 
> > For a house-elf to be happy he must be allowed to do what he has
been doing for centuries -> serve wizarding kind and the only thing
that can be changed is how wizards treat house-elves.  To change the
bad conditions of the house-elf you do not need to change the
house-elf but the behavior of wizards in regards to house-elf. 
> 
Magpie:
> That's exactly what I said. Harry's only duty lies in noblesse 
oblige, to accept that it is his rightful place to be served by House
Elves and to treat his inferiors well. He's a "good slave owner." <snip>

Carol:
And within the context of the WW, there's nothing wrong with that. If
you have a slave, you have a moral obligation to treat him (or her)
well, with respect and consideration and understanding of House-Elf
psychology, which includes the desire to serve a loved or respected
master or mistress. You can't free a House-Elf without disgracing him
and making him miserable. Noblesse oblige, exactly. And asking for a
sandwich on the morning after a battle, when the House-Elves are
probably preparing breakfast, anyway, for those who aren't sleeping in
(I assume that the students who didn't fight are returning to school),
is not a hardship or in any way unreasonable. It's just asking
Kreacher to do his job.

Magpie:
<snip> The point really isn't that Kreacher will be unhappy at Harry
asking him to make him a sandwich, it's people saying they don't like
this kind of situation no matter how justified it is in this universe.
They don't want their hero having a slave and don't much admire him
when he's thinking about what food he wants his slave to bring him in
bed. They might not see any reason for him to have a servant at all.

Carol responds:

To respond to the last paragraph first, the readers who are having
that reaction are thinking of real-world slavery, IMO. Harry has a
servant because he inherited one, and he can't free that servant with
insulting and hurting him. From JKR's perspective, she can't have
Harry free him. Kreacher and Harry are together till death do them part.

While Harry is at Hogwarts, he can't make his own sandwich, in any
case. True, he can walk down to the kitchen and ask for one, but it
will still be made by House-Elves. Or he can have his personal
House-elf Apparate to him (the wandless Apparition tha only
House-Elves can perform, even at Hogwarts) and return almost instantly
with a magically made sandwich. Either way it will be made by
House-Elves, and if Harry summons Kreacher to do it, Kreacher will
consider himself especially honored. And if Harry were at 12 GP with
Kreacher, he probably wouldn't be able to make his own sandwich,
either, unless Kreacher was too old or ill to do it. ("What is master
doing in Kreacher's kitchen? Wash your hands, Master Harry, and sit
down. Kreacher will make the sandwich.")

If Harry (exhausted though he is by a long day of battle and
self-sacrifice) could just go to the kitchen and make himself a
sandwich, it would be different. But the kitchen will be full of
House-Elves who wouldn't think of letting a wizard make his own
sandwich. So it's Kreacher or the Hogwarts Elves in general, who might
even compete among themselves for the honor. Surely, summoning
Kreacher is not only the simplest and most logical solution but the
one that Kreacher and the other House-Elves are most likely to approve.

House-Elves aren't people. They likes work, miss, better than they
likes freedom or wages. It may be their nature or it may be the
enchantment, but either way, that's just the way it is. What they
absolutely don't want is enforced "freedom," which is just another
word for unemployment and disgrace. We lives to serve, miss. It's very
different from asking Ron, who can't Apparate within the castle or
make a sandwich by magic any more than Harry can (I don't mean
conjuring it out of thin air, which not even House-Elves can
presumably do) to do what he could do just as well himself. He *can't*
make a sandwich in that castle because the House-Elves would consider
it an infringement on their territory.

I agree that JKR isn't condoning human slavery or making any statement
about slavery at all. House-Elves are not people. All they want is to
be treated well. We have to accept Hermione's assessment of House-Elf
psychology (except for her perverse desire to free them) because it
explains Kreacher's behavior and attitude in "Kreacher's Tale"
perfectly and because we have no other canonical explanation.
House-Elves do have thoughts and feelings, but they're not people, and
they don't think like people. I doubt very much that Harry woke
Kreacher from a well-earned nap. He was probably joining the other
House-Elves in whatever work they were doing and waiting for his
master to call him.

As for the "slave race" (they're not a race of people; they're a
separate species) and writing history the way she wanted it to be,
she's not writing history here at all. She's writing fantasy.
House-Elves are based on the brownies of folklore and have nothing to
do with any human race whatever. (IMO.) Imagine the chaos and
unhappiness in the WW if the Hogwarts House-Elves and others were
freed. What would they do? Where would they go? They don't want to be
paid. They'd probably ask for their old jobs back, please, miss. And
if someone offered them payment and days off, they'd negotiate for
*lower* pay and *fewer* days off, as Dobby did. Again, it's fantasy.

Carol, who sees nothing wrong with Kreacher asking for a sandwich
under the circumstances and is sure that the House-elves, including
Kreacher, voluntarily returned to work the moment the Battle of
Hogwarts was over