CHAPDISC: DH25, Shell Cottage

[Beatrice23]

No: HPFGUIDX 184017

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Elfundeb wrote:
> <snip> I, for one, do not believe goblin notions of ownership are
> wrong; they are different, reflecting cultural norms in goblin society
> -- in which craftsmanship may have been honored and revered above all
> else -- before they were subjugated and marginalized by the dominant
> wizard culture and shunted aside into professions for which wizards
> have no taste or aptitude.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I don't want to get into discussions of "marginalized cultures" and
> whether the Goblins were "shunted" into those professions or chose the
> ones they were good at (like Tolkien's dwarves). Nor am I going to
> repeat my views on Goblin ownership, which I see as, shall we say,
> mistaken. Instead, I'll accept Deb's statement that they're
> "different," which I think we can all agree on, and just point out
> that Griphook's "different" notions of property and ownership did not
> prompt him to offer payment or even a thank you to Bill and Fleur for
> his use of their house, his consumption of their food, his acceptance
> of Fleur's services in waiting on and healing him. A Goblin is
> supposed to be paid in gold coins (made by Goblins) for his services
> and materials in creating a tiara or sword or armor, which he
> nevertheless biews as still belonging to him, but the Wizards are not
> supposed to be paid or even thanked for the services they rendered and
> the food and medicine that were theirs but which they can never get
> back because he consumed them?

Beatrice:  But your assumptions are based on human understanding of
service and gratitude.  First, we don't know that Griphook didn't pay
them or leave Bill and Fleur anything behind.  I know that you hate
this but, it is possible that this occurs even if we are not told
about this.  Although I suspect that my next two theories or a
combination therein are probably closer to the point. First, many
cultures have very specific rules governing guests.  If one claims
guest status in a household or the head of household declares that
person a guest, the host is expected to care for that person and would
be highly affronted by any payment or any thanks.  It is considered
the host's duty and honor to care for that person and any reciprocity
is considered an insult.  Second, and perhaps closer to the point,
Griphook may consider Bill and Fleur's care his just due for two
reasons.  He has become a victim in a war between factions of wizards,
a war that has nothing to do with him and his kind, therefore as
wizards it is Bill and Fleur's duty to care for him as a victim of
their "kind."  Also, he may see the lie he told Bellatrix as a
contract between himself and those who fight with Harry Potter.  He
has done Harry a service and as such he is owed certain considerations
and care.   
> 
> How does the Goblin economy work among Goblins themselves, I wonder?
> If one Goblin makes another a sword and the second Goblin pays for it,
> does the first Goblin still consider it his, or does one Goblinmade
> product, a set of gold coins in an amount that the first Goblin sets,
> compensate him for another Golinmade product, the sword, which can
> still be said to belong to "the goblins," just not to the Goblin who
> made it?

Well, we don't really know enough about their ideology to plot any
theories here.  Perhaps, goblins would consider ownership transfered
because it is a contract between two goblins who trade commodities
that in their view rightfully belong to their kind and their kind
alone.  Or their may be an assumption that the item can be passed down
along goblin lines and thus the item never goes out of goblin
ownership, therefore there is no question.  If for example, the line
of a particular goblin dies out then all of his possessions belong to
the goblin community in general and it is up to the most worthy goblin
to attain those items.

> 
> What about houses? Surely Goblins. at ;east those with families, live
> in houses, not caves. Do Goblins build their own houses? Surely, the
> Goblin builder of a house wouldnt still consider it his after another
> Goblin paid for it. Or would he? Do they only lease, not sell, houses?
> What if Goblins can't build houses, either by law (let's say that
> they're restricted to banking and metalcrafts) or because they have no
> interest in/aptitude for house-building and must buy houses from the
> Wizards who build them. Would they see the Wizard-built house as
> belonging to the Wizard who built it and theirs only as long as they
> keep paying rent, or theirs only for the lifetime of the Goblin couple?

Oddly, there might be an answer in English property history here.  In
English history land / house were often leased by the wealthy class
from landowners with interesting contracts.  EG. As a wealthy merchant
, I lease an estate from Lord so and so, rather than leasing the
property for a year or two the contracts often indicated that the
lessee had the right to renew the contract for 500 years.  This way
leases and leased property could stay within generations of the same
family, if they desired, but the actual ownership stayed with the deed
holder.  Maybe it doesn't work this way, but this was my thought when
I read your argument...
> 
> If one Goblin makes a cake and another buys it, surely the baker
> retains no claim on the cake, whether the cake is eaten or thrown
> away. If one Goblin makes and sells clothes (I won't say shoes because
> the Goblins seem to go barefoot), would the tailor-Goblin consider the
> clothes to belong to himself?

Well, there are always different rules governing consumable /
disposable items than more substantial items.  
 
> 
> It seems to me that these, erm, *different* views of Goblin ownership
> apply mostly if not solely to metalcraft, to valuable objects made
> from precious metals and precious stones, especially if they also have
> magical powers. It also seems to me that this view is selfish and
> impractical and could cause disputes between Goblin craftsmen and
> Goblin owners if applied within their culture.
> 
> A Goblin selling to a Wizard should, perhaps, require a written
> contract. If the Goblin craftsman insists that the object is still his
> despite payment in Goblin-made coins for a Goblin-made artifact, the
> Wizard should have the right to refuse to pay. If the Goblin agrees
> that selling amounts to a change of ownership, the Goblin should honor
> that bargain, just as he would if he were selling a cake rather than a
> sword.  
> 
> What the Goblin retains when he makes a sword or a tiara or a piece of
> armor for a Wizard is the secret of his craftsmanship. The Wizard can
> duplicate its appearance, but never its powers or its worth. (The
> duplicate cups in the Lestrange vault are worthless, as is the Fake
> Sword of Gryffindor.) The Goblins have been paid for their materials
> and their highly specialized services, just as Mr. Ollivander is paid
> for his when he makes a wand. They retain the secrets of their
> craftsmanship? What more do the Goblins need, other than the right to
> carry wands? (If they want to make their own wands, let them share
> their own secrets in exchange.)
> 
> But to return to my point. Suppose that Goblins had the right to carry
> wands but depended on Wizards to make them because they didn't have
> the secret to wand-making. Would they believe that even though they
> had paid for the wand, it still belonged to its maker, or to the
> Wizards in general? I don't think that they would. And yet such a view
> of property must extend both ways or it has no validity at all.


Okay, but we have already seen that in the wizarding world the
races/cultures don't find it necessary to treat others under the same
rules that they treat their own kind.  Wizards don't treat house
elves, goblins, centaurs, merpeople, giants, etc. with the same rules
and or conditions that they treat other wizards, so why should goblins
or any other "race" be any different?  This is after all one of the
things that Griphook remarks upon about Harry.  That he is not like
other wizards: he buries Dobby, he rescues Griphook, etc.  Griphook
obviously does not expect this kind of behavior from wizards and
doesn't seem to know what to make of this treatment.