House-Elves yet again

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 181287

> > a_svirn:
> > I expected Harry to feel acute discomfort at owning a slave. Or 
whatever 
> > euphemism we use instead. A bound
> > servant. I did not expect him to complacently settle into being 
a 
> > slave-owner.
> 
> 
> Shelley:
> I think those who are trying to equate House Elves with slavery as 
we know 
> it are missing the mark, in that this is a Wizarding World, and 
the rules 
> are so totally different from our reality. 

Magpie:
The rules are very often the same as our reality, particularly when 
it comes to things like bigotry, friendship, how one treats others.

Shelley:
House Elves are not fellow humans 
> (equals in body, thought and independence), that one can just 
equate it to 
> human slavery, 

Magpie:
I don't understand what this means. They're not human, but that 
doesn't mean they can't be equals in many ways--they are persons 
even if they aren't human persons, just like Goblins and Centaurs. 
So what does it mean they're not equals in body, thought and 
independence? They haven't different looking bodies than we do, but 
that doesn't make them lower than us. They are able to think on the 
human level. They're not independent equally, but that's the whole 
point--they're slaves. This could describe human slaves as well.

Shelley:

and secondly, we have it straight out of the mouths of the 
> House Elves themselves that they are pleased to serve a master and 
that it 
> causes them great discomfort not to have a house to serve.

Magpie:
This thread has gone into this idea in a very detailed way, so I 
don't see how you can just jump back to it like it's so simple. 
Liking to *serve* is not the same as wanting to be *owned.* They are 
pleased to serve people *they wish to serve*--they show plenty of 
discomfort when forced to serve masters they don't want to serve 
because they are owned.

Shelley: 
> We see two types of magical creatures with brains- ones such as 
the 
> Centaurs, who prefer that the Wizards leave them alone, respect 
them as 
> equals and capable of making decisions for themselves (and 
therefore distain 
> any regulation or rules being made about them), and ones such as 
House 
> Elves, who despite all their magical abilities and powers to fight 
back, 
> seem to CHOOSE the co-existence of being actively involved in the 
Wizard's 
> lives (like the ghoul that lived in the Weasley attic), as if they 
consider 
> it to be a mutual symbiotic relationship instead. 

Magpie:
And also giants, goblins, leprechauns, veelas and merpeople. But 
house elves choosing to co-exist and be actively involved with 
Wizards hardly means they must be owned as slaves. The relationship 
stops being mutual or symbiotic (it's not symbiotic to begin with, 
since the two groups aren't physically dependent on each other that 
I can see) when an elf is trapped into serving somebody he doesn't 
want to serve. Kreacher didn't choose to be owned by Harry despite 
having the power to fight back, he was forced to be owned by Harry 
because Sirius left him to Harry in his will. The only fighting back 
he could do was in a roundabout way that tried to work around his 
slavery--he couldn't just choose a master he prefered.

Shelley:
It's certainly not one 
> way, the way a real slavery would be- the House Elves see it as a 
honor to 
> know all the family's dirty little secrets and are pleased to be 
trusted to 
> keep such secrets. It kills Winky when she is forced to spill the 
beans on 
> the Crouches- it's the height of dishonor to her, more than 
being "sacked", 
> or given clothing. 

Magpie:
That's not so unlike real slavery. Human slaves or servants can 
consider it an honor to know the family's secrets and be pleased to 
be trusted to keep them. Humans can be dishonored by spilling the 
beans on families they love and by being sacked.

Shelley:
Thus, I see the House Elves getting something tangible 
> and real from serving a house, so much so that they prefer it to 
not doing 
> it. 

Magpie:
Serving in a house is not the same as being owned as a slave. They 
don't get much at all from that second part, and sometimes it brings 
them pain.

Shelley:
I think even if the foolish Wizards tried to pass legislation 
freeing 
> all the elves, they would find the Elves thumbing their noses at 
the Wizards 
> and continuing to serve the same Houses that they have served 
anyway, 
> asserting that it is "their choice" to keep a House's secrets.


Magpie:
And if that happened that would be foolish why, exactly? If they 
thumbed their noses at Wizards but continued to serve in the houses 
like they always did that would be great. They would no longer be 
slaves, but they could still serve the way they enjoy (serving who 
and when they wanted) and Wizards could still enjoy their service 
(without being slave masters). It would be ideal.

Shelley: 
> Harry as a slave owner- at first he wasn't comfortable with it! No 
way! But 
> then he and Kreacher came to an understanding, and once that 
understanding 
> was established, Kreacher was all too happy to serve Harry as his 
new owner, 
> and I think Harry was happier watching Kreacher transition into 
his new role 
> rather than leave him as the demented thing who only had a 
portrait to talk 
> to before Sirius returned. 

Magpie:
And that to me is pretty icky, to watch Harry become comfortable 
with being a slave owner. Harry's change of heart had nothing to do 
with Harry caring whether or not Kreacher had somebody to talk to 
besides a portrait. He's not making any sacrifices for Kreacher's 
sake in letting Kreacher serve him. He's benefitting from it--
obviously it's much nicer for Harry being waited on by somebody 
who's good at his job than a nasty elf who can't stand him and shows 
it. But Harry gave him orders and was his owner either way. 

Shelley:
Kreacher himself was stuck in the past- all alone 
> in a house with a dead master, and was unhappy that he had no one 
to serve 
> once Sirius died. Kreacher was happy in his new role once he and 
Harry made 
> peace (became friends?), and it's clear that Kreacher did have a 
say in what 
> he was or would be to Harry- not as a slave, but in his attitude.

Magpie:
Kreacher *did not* have a say in his situation at all, only in his 
attitude towards it. That's what makes him a slave. It was lucky 
that Harry and Kreacher made peace (I wouldn't call a master and 
slave "friends") but if they never had Kreacher would still have 
been bound to obey Harry. Kreacher was not unhappy because he 
had "no one to serve," he was unhappy because he was forced to serve 
those he did not want to serve. If he could have served Bellatrix or 
Draco in OotP or HBP he would have been happy too--he couldn't do 
that because he was owned by Sirius and then Harry. House Elves 
don't seem to have much trouble looking for people to wait on with 
no recompense--Dobby's problem was that he wanted to be paid for it.

Shelley:
 Once the 
> relationship between Harry and Kreacher was established, Harry 
could have 
> attempted to free him, and again, I think the attitude would have 
been "no 
> way, it's my honor to serve the house of Potter!" 

Magpie:
And if he did that it would have been the ideal ending--why on earth 
would Harry not free him if that would have been his response? It 
would have been the right thing to do if the result of it would have 
just been Kreacher saying "Okay, but I'm going to serve you anyway 
as a free elf!" 

Shelley:
Thus, I don't see Harry as 
> being a "slave owner" in any the same way of the Early American 
Colonists 
> who bought slaves on a common human market, walking around them to 
inspect 
> the bodies as if one was inspecting a cow or a horse to be bought. 
> Certainly, I don't think Harry could have "sold" Kreacher if he 
wanted to, 
> because the slavery is not of that nature. Any magical contract 
that governs 
> the House Elf implies that if a master dies, the House Elf moves 
on to serve 
> the next living relative, so that a House Elf was never intended 
to be alone 
> and miserable, the way Kreacher was when there were no more Blacks 
to serve. 
> Kreacher was tied to the House (Grimmald Place) or to the House 
(of Black), 
> either way, he was bound to the next heir that would get any 
possessions.

Magpie:
First, there *were* Blacks for Kreacher to serve. He wasn't left 
bereft because they died off, he passed into the hands of the Black 
he didn't want to serve, and then into Harry's hands. As for the 
rest I don't see how the specific quirks of WW slavery vs. US 
slavery change the fact that it's slavery. House Elves may or may 
not be sold, but they certainly do change hands at the whim of their 
masters in wills. (Kreacher did not go on to serve the next living 
relative, he went to Harry because Sirius willed him to him as 
property.) Kreacher is not bound to the House (he later lives at 
Hogwarts) or the House of Black, he's bound to the person who owns 
him.

I don't see why it's so important that House Elves are 
not "inspected" like a sheep or a horse to be bought--we don't even 
know if they aren't ever inspected. The Blacks possibly beheaded 
theirs when they were considered physically unfit. But it still 
seems a bit odd to just refer to the particulars of US slavery as 
making it more like slavery--if I were a Wizard I might just make 
the opposite argument and say, "I don't see Early American Colonists 
being a "slave owner" in any the same way as Elf-owning Wizards who 
own creatures forced to abuse themselves if they even think badly of 
us and don't even have to provide them with food or shelter." 
American slaves might also suffer being kidnapped and imprisoned for 
a long sea voyage, and they might be raped by their owners--those 
are three more evils on top of the slavery, not things that are part 
of the definition of slavery.


Shelley:
It's easier on our brains to think of 
> slavery in the context of the Early African Americans, bound in 
chains, 
> whipped, beaten and forced into everything against their will that 
to think 
> that these creatures choose a symbiotic relationship with self-
imposed 
> rules, but I really think canon supports the latter rather than 
the former. 
> Thus, I do not beat up Harry for being a slave owner, rather I was 
pleased 
> to see him make friends with Kreacher so that Kreacher could live 
the rest 
> of his days a happy House Elf, one with purpose and dignity.

Magpie:
I'm not confusing them with African American slaves, I'm judging 
them by exactly what's in the books and what is in the books is not 
a symbiotic relationship that's happy all around. The books do show 
elves bound against their will--Kreacher and Dobby at different 
times. Imo, it doesn't matter whether or not a house elf is happy, 
the point of slavery is that if he decides he isn't happy, he's 
stuck. Kreacher's being happy serving Harry for the rest of his life 
doesn't make him less of a slave or Harry less of a slave owner. 
Freedom only becomes necessary when you've got something you want or 
don't want to do that requires that freedom. Kreacher's already 
faced that, he's already suffered from his lack of freedom and 
nobody made it so he could do what he wanted then. The problem might 
have disappeared from Kreacher's mind when he became happy with 
Harry, but it didn't actually disappear.

-m