Dark Book - Draco - Antinomianism

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 177368

Mus: 
> 
> There was no necessity for JKR to take this line, but she did take 
> it.  One of the things that made me uncomfortable while reading DH 
> was the way that it switches to supporting the status quo - house-
> elves like being enslaved and disregarding goblin views on property 
> is not only necessary but right.  I was genuinely puzzled as to why 
> JKR would put in something that so clearly mirrored native people's 
> property rights, and then blow it apart.
<snip>
 More moral muddle, for this reader.

Pippin:
Goblin rebellions were canon from early on and the reason
Hermione was never hipped on goblin rights. She knew
about their history and she felt they could take care of 
themselves. I always felt her approach to civil rights was  a
bit shallow: more about making her feel good than about
what the peoples of the WW really needed.

In any case there is a big difference between making 
moral pronouncements and putting them into action. 

Armchair moralizing is easy -- trusting a goblin who seems
to be both greedy and bloodthirsty when you've been told some
goblins might be on Lord Voldemort's side, turned out to be 
too hard. Harry definitely was not comfortable with what he was
doing, though, and of course he lost the sword. When a hero loses a
signature weapon, it generally means he has done something 
unworthy of it.

The same dilemma applies to the House Elves. Armchair
theorizing that House Elves should all be set free runs up
against stark realities: House Elves don't want to be freed,
and don't do well when freed against their will.

House Elves, except Dobby, do like being enslaved. That was
canon from the beginning, Hermione just refused to believe it.
But this is not as bizarre as it seems: the phrase "slave
mentality" was not coined to describe the condition of  House 
Elves.

Setting free the  Elves remains a worthy goal but 
more distant than Hermione imagined. 

Pippin