Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180753

> Mike:
> OK, I see your point now, thanks for explaining that. I would agree 
> with your point if I looked upon house elves as slaves. Then it 
would 
> indeed be wrong to perpetuate their condition simply out of 
> expediancy. I would expect better from a Gryffindor like Hermione 
> than to stand aside and just let slavery continue. And in fact she 
> tries to do that and is shown to be wrong in her initial 
> interpretation of the house elf condition. They are not "slaves".

a_svirn:
Oh, come now. Of course they are. They are the property of wizards, 
completely divested of personal rights and freedom, entirely subject 
to their will. All of the above means slaves. 


> Mike:
> If you (generic) insist on looking upon the house elves as slaves, 
> then you (generic) are making the same mistake that Hermione made. 

a_svirn:
Which is what?

> Mike:
> That's not the way to look at them, imo. Hermione finally gets it. 
> She has refocused herself on their treatment, that self-
flagellation 
> thing has become her focus. That was the source of her distress 
> during Kreachers Tale. "Stop him -- stop him!" Hermione cried, "Oh, 
> don't you see now how sick it is, the way they've got to obey?"
> <p 197, US> 

a_svirn:
And that's not slavery because? 
> 
> 
> > a_svirn:
> > 
> > Well, we didn't get to see wizards lifting the enchantments,
> > did we? So, this good point belongs to the realm of fanfiction.

> > Mike:
> No, it has not been corrected by the end of DH. But one of our 
> heroes, Hermione, has realized it. And she's informed Ron's and 
> Harry's interpretations. Ron was right about the elves not being 
> slaves, 

a_svirn:
When did he ever say so? He only said that they *like* being what 
they are. Which is slaves. 

> > Mike:
but he was enlightenment to their treatment only comes at
> the end of DH. Harry has only reached the treat mine right stage,
> but it's a start.

a_svirn:
What exactly does she realises? The only thing she realised is that 
they aren't like humans. I don't remember her saying anything about 
their not being slaves. Or about lifting the enchantments. 

> Mike:
> But you can't stop elves from 
> serving wizards. Well, you *can* kick them all out, deny them 
houses 
> and life's purpose, but to what end? 

a_svirn:
You can, however, stop wizards from *owning* them. It is their nature 
to serve? OK, I get it. Is it in the wizading nature to own, then? I 
hope, not. Then again, perhaps it is. 

> Mike:
> Telling elves they are "slaves" is as insulting to them as would be 
> telling merpeople they are fish. House elves existance is to serve 
> wizards, that's who they are. And they can no more deny that than 
> merpeople can deny their need for water.

a_svirn:
Eh? For one thing it was an elf who first mentioned their 
enslavement. Besides, it is true, while calling merpeople fish, or 
centaurs nags is not. And my point is that it should be insulting for 
wizards to *be* slave-owners. 
> 
> > a_svirn:
> > Yes, indeed. And notice how little wizards concern themselves 
with 
> > goblins' beliefs and customs, and nature. Wizards do not want to
> > play by their rules, do they? Because it wouldn't suit them.
> > Goblins's notions of ownership clash with those of wizards, but
> > they have no quarrel with elves' notions of happy servitude. So
> > it's all down to wizards, not to the magical creatures. 
> 
> Mike:
> Goblins were shown as greedy and unscrupulous. Griphook was fine 
with 
> breaking into a Gringotts vault, to let Harry and co. steal 
whatever 
> thing they wanted, as long as he could get the bigger prize of 
> Gryffindor's sword back. Harry planned a letter if not spirit of 
the 
> law maneouver. Griphook one upped him by outright double crossing 
> Harry. But Neville drawing the sword out of the Hat in the end 
> signifies who the rightful owners of the sword are.
> 
> Goblins aren't wizard's servants, that has been repeated 
throughout. 
> They can take care of themselves and they aren't restricted in 
using 
> their magic like house elves are. Curious how their biggest beef 
> seems to be that wizards won't share their wandlore, at the same 
time 
> they insist anything made with by their hand, with their skills is 
> theirs to keep. And they don't seem to be sharing *their* gifts of 
> metalurgy and other craftsmanship.

a_svirn:
We are veering from the point though. I wasn't trying to say that 
Goblins were mistreated (though it might even be the case). What I 
say is that wizards are less than ready to conform to their nature 
and culture (for whatever reasons). They are, however perfectly happy 
to accommodate elves' nature. Which means that in their dealing with 
the magical creatures their natures, cultures, and wellbeing aren't 
wizards' real concern. They are only concerned of their own, so that 
argument of the natures of magical creatures is really not that 
relevant. Wizards own elves because they want slaves, not because 
elves want to serve.