Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180754

> > 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?

Magpie:
The same one that JKR makes, apparently, because she says:

"I would hope that [the series] has made people think, I mean I do 
not write the books thinking what is my message for today, what is my 
moral, that is not how I set out to write a book at all. I am not 
trying to criticise or make speeches to you in any way, but at the 
same time, it would be great if the people thought about bullying 
behaviour or racism. The house elves is really for slavery, isn't it, 
the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we 
probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already."

The house elves is for slavery--the same slavery that we in the real 
world are assumed to feel strongly about already.The house elves are 
slaves.

Ron's view, I agree, hasn't changed. He thinks they like being slaves 
and has no problem with slavery itself in their case, at least, we 
know. He also thinks a slave owner shouldn't abuse his slaves. That's 
not anti-slavery. I agree the question for Wizards isn't whether or 
not house elves are right to want to be slaves, but whether it is 
right for them to own slaves. I don't think one can be a slave or own 
a slave without that having an effect on the person.

> > 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. 

Magpie:
Agreed. I don't think most house elves would consider it an insult to 
be called a slave at all--on the contrary, it's exactly the position 
they demand. Whether or not they call themselves "slaves" or 
simply "house elves" we can't get around that they like being slaves 
by definition--not just service providers or helpers (only Dobby 
wants to be those things and *not* a slave, making the same 
distinction). In order to not be disgraced they need to be owned and 
not get anything in return for what they do. And the Trio ultimately 
accept the advantages of this to themselves. 

Harry starts out a kid instinctively against anybody being owned with 
Dobby--and continues to respect Dobby as a free elf. However with 
Kreacher he goes from never wanting to have anything to do with him, 
to using him once in a pinch (against Kreacher's wishes by using his 
magical power as master), to enjoying regular house elf/master 
relations once Kreacher's work gets better and Kreacher gets more 
pleasant.

> a_svirn:
 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.

Magpie:
I agree.

-m