Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 180756

> 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:
Then since merpeople swim, feed, and live under the water, can't 
survive out of it, they are fish. Everything that merpeople are,
when translated into the real world like you are doing with elves, 
means fish. You are imposing real world values on mythical creatures, 
which of necessity doesn't make your imposition the only choice. I 
realize I'm asking you to suspend your disbelief, but isn't that what 
we're doing when we step into the magical world of the Potterverse?

You look at what the story leads you to believe, I see differently. 
I'm not saying you are wrong, I just ask you if there was suppose 
to be some object lesson regarding elves, which you apparently think 
there is, what is the lesson the story tells? Was it that slavery is 
a good thing? Or was it to respect and allow the non-human values 
of these non-humans, and therefore work to improve their condition 
within the framework of those values? That one cannot go around 
imposing one's own values on other beings, especially in a world 
filled with magical creatures. 

BTW, I'm not denying you can come away with the former, I'm only 
suggesting that my coming away with the latter is just as valid.


> a_svirn:
> And that's not slavery because?

Mike:
Because slavery is a human construct. They're not humans, they don't 
accept that definition of their condition. (All except Dobby, the 
exception that proves the rule).


> > Mike:
> > 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:
It was that attitude of Ron's that said so, for me. He accepted 
their condition from the beginning, as Montavilla47 so eloquently 
pointed out in her post up thread.


> Magpie:
> The same one that JKR makes, apparently, because she says:
> 
> <snip the **interview** quote>
> 
> 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.

Mike:
Yep, and the Slytherins came thundering back with Slughorn. Wasn't 
that in another of her interviews? But what did canon tell you?

I've been consistent in my approach to JKR interviews. I accept none 
as canon, either before or after DH, whether they help or hurt my 
argument. I only ask for the same in arguments opposing mine.



> > 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.

Mike: Answered above. And why can't a centaur be called a nag? It's 
just as much a derogatory term as "slave".


> > a_svirn:
> > And my point is that it should be insulting for 
> > wizards to *be* slave-owners.

Mike:
And my point would be that if house elves are not categorized as 
slaves, then wizards are not slave-owners.


> Magpie:
> <snip>
> 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.

Mike:
Or the Trio ultimately accept house elves for who they are, deciding 
not to impose Hermione's original value system on them. 

Hermione was decidely repulsed at Kreacher having to punish himself. 
She has learned that she can't improve the elves lot by freeing them, 
but instead by eliminating the self-punishment aspect which, I 
assume, was what wizards contributed to the house elf condition. 
(Speculating - that assumption)


> Magpie:
> Harry starts out a kid instinctively against anybody being owned 
> with Dobby--and continues to respect Dobby as a free elf.

Mike:
As I said, Dobby is the exception. Also, Harry starts out not knowing 
anything of the WW. Though Harry's instincts are noble, they are not 
helpful for house elves. That Dobby was the first elf he met, only 
clouds the situation. But he seems to cotton Winky's perspective. 
It's just that he has more important things on his mind than house 
elves for most of the series, so I don't blame him.


> Magpie:
> 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.

Mike:
And Kreacher was disgusted with this change in Harry, was he? So 
Harry accepts the ways of this world, vastly improves his 
relationship with Kreacher, and I'm supposed to think that's a bad 
thing?!


> > a_svirn:
> > What I say is that wizards are less than ready to conform 
> > to their [goblin's] 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.

Mike:
Bill, who works with goblins, seems to have a good grasp of their 
nature. I'm not sure it's fair to take the understanding of three 
teenage wizards and extrapolate that to the whole WW. That the WW 
seems less than empathetic to the other magical creatures comes from 
things like Sirius' rants against people like Umbridge. (And Crouch, 
and Dumbledore's pronouncements). It also comes from Griphook's self 
serving (and I might add, hypocritical) position on goblin-wizard 
relations. Griphook flattered Harry by telling him he was different, 
but he treated Harry the same as he would any other wizard, in the 
end. Is that the type of culture that wizards should endeavor to 
understand and empathize with?

That wizards might have deluded themselves into believing they are 
superior (witness the Magical Creatures fountain), I readily see as 
entirely possible. But remember, that fountain is in the MoM. And 
the Ministry has not shown itself to be a reliable indicator of the 
wider wizarding continuum.

IOW, you might be conflating that paradigm of virtue, the MoM and 
all it's ridiculous rules and regulations (and it's Crouches and 
Umbridges), with the non-officious wizards like Arthur and Bill when 
you condemn their motives for elf ownership. That the MoM would only 
see elves as slaves, I've no doubt. But I'm not so sure that the rest 
of the WW takes that narrow view. (Of course, if only the Malfoys and 
the Ministry types own elves, all bets are off <g>).

Closing out for me, I don't accept the view that I have to regard 
this magical world with my real world glasses. I didn't read this 
series to be informed on real world considerations. I don't care what 
JKR may have intended as real world parallels, if that's not the way 
the story reads to me, then those intentions came to naught. 

I cannot help thinking of witches and wizards as humans, as clearly 
they are magical humans. So I will almost always ascribe human 
emotions and motivations to those characters. But the rest of the 
magical creatures are not, so I refuse to be confined to human 
constructs when trying to figure them out. And if *I'm* not going to 
be thusly confined, I likewise will not require the human characters 
to be.

Mike