[HPforGrownups] Re: House-Elves yet again

[k12listmomma]

No: HPFGUIDX 181310

> 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:
But you are still thinking of them in human terms- what would make a HUMAN 
happy, and can't comprehend that a magical creature with a different makeup 
would NOT think like us, appreciate the same things, have the same value 
system. We, as humans, have fiercely valued our independence. Those sentient 
creatures that don't value independence are not "lower" than us, they just 
share a different view on life. They make decisions based on different 
criteria. Those who are still arguing for "slavery" are trying to put a 
"human" in that same prediciment, and predict how "we" would feel, and 
that's the wrong approach, since we are not House Elves, and House Elves are 
not humans. Thus, we tend to ignore the comment given in canon "they LIKE 
their position" as somehow invalid, not really meaning what it says, because 
if we were a human in that postion, we wouldn't like it, so we can't really 
believe that it's true that a house elf likes it. We are substituting our 
values for the House Elves. If you take House Elf values, it's clear that 
they put themselves in a symbiotic relationship with Wizards. And I can't 
tell a House Elf that he or she shouldn't like that symbiotic relationship, 
just because if it were me in that position, I would call it slavery.


> 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.

Shelley:
Because it is so simple, once you get past thinking like a fiercy 
independent human being who frankly hates to serve others, and desires to be 
served, to thinking like a House Elf that admits pleasure in having a House 
to serve.

> Magpie:
> Liking to *serve* is not the same as wanting to be *owned.*

Shelley:
But again, it is us humans who are making that artificial distinction. I do 
not see in canon where the House Elves themselves make that distinction. 
Kreacher's fight is that he was taken away from "serving" his mistress, the 
portrait, not necessarily that ownership was transferred to Harry. Once he 
respected Harry, then he was more than happy to "serve" Harry.

I really think we are going to have to agree to disagree if you insist House 
Elves are slaves, and cannot see the possibility that it was the House Elves 
themselves who put themselves in the predicament they are in, rather than 
the mean old Wizards having forced them into it. Because the legislation 
that you would enact to "correct any wrongs" would be totally different if 
you had to respect the House Elf wishes to serve a master. That's exactly 
where I think Hermione gets it all wrong- she sees slavery from a human 
point of view, not from a House Elf point of view, and the idea that so FEW 
Wizards go along with her idea tells me that she is missing the mark as far 
as understanding of these creatures goes.