Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180761

> > 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. 

Magpie:
Actually, there's more to being a fish than those things.:-)

Mike:
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. 

Magpie:
But as a_svirn has pointed out, this isn't about house elf values 
since Wizards don't respect the values of all magical races just 
because they are the values of the magical race. As to what it says 
about slavery, it certainly says that slavery isn't a bad thing (and 
actually can be construed as a good thing) if you have a willing 
slave. The advantages to having a slave are certainly shown in a 
guilt-free way. Iow, it shows that in some situations there's nothing 
inherently wrong with being the master to a slave. It might lead to 
other abuses, but the master/slave relationship is not in itself a 
moral problem for the slave master.

> > 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?

Magpie:
I'm not using that quote as canon, but since we were talking about 
what the story "is" it seemed like a statement of the author's 
intention here seemed relevent. Dobby calls himself a "free elf" and 
other elves are freaked out by him because he is a "free elf," the 
opposite of a slave. They also use the word "Master." The elves' own 
language doesn't indicate a different understanding. 

More importantly in this case, the *wizards* consider them slaves. 
Whatever the mindset of the elves, who are not the pov characters, 
the Wizards make no bones about seeing them as slaves and don't come 
to some new understanding that from their (the Wizards') pov they're 
something else. Wizards are humans and have the same understanding of 
the human construct of slavery that we do. That's why the question 
isn't whether house elves are wrong to want to be what they are--
whether or not a house elf truly understands himself to be a slave 
because that's a human construct that they don't understand, the 
Wizards absolutely understand them as slaves in the same way readers 
do.  
 

> > 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:
And they also agree to own a slave. I do of course understand that 
house elf nature is at play and that we've seen that just freeing 
them creates problems for them which is different from it is with 
humans. Hermione actually doesn't say anything abuot eliminating the 
self-punishment which there's really no reason to assume is the work 
of Wizards and not house elves, since we don't know. 

But however much one sympathizes with Hermione's dilemma about house 
elves' inability to be freed without suffering, from her pov she 
embraces being a slave owner and merely holds herself up to what she 
considers "good slaveowner" behavior. She's not cruel to the slaves, 
but she accepts her place as the one being waited on and who has all 
the power. She doesn't compromise, for instance, by not freeing 
Kreacher but also never taking advantage of him for her own benefit 
(iow, not freeing him but also not becoming a master).

> > 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:
He certainly does cloud the situation--and it's the author clouding 
it! Our first introductions to house elves is exactly like human 
slavery. If we were only talking about CoS we'd have no disagreement 
that they are like humanoid slaves. But of course later he sees that 
they aren't human and want to be this way, and does not share 
Hermione's desire to force them to be unhappy for his principles.


> > 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?!

Magpie:
You don't have to, but I do. Because you're assuming that Kreacher 
not being a slave in Kreacher's eyes means that Harry isn't a slave 
owner and I disagree. Sure Kreacher is perfectly happy with Harry 
actively acting like a master. Good for Kreacher. But I think looking 
at Harry as an individual it's a personal moral decline. Maybe not 
some huge thing that's immediately apparent, but Kreacher's being 
fundamentally than a human slave doesn't, imo, make Harry 
fundamentally different from human slavemasters. In some ways he is, 
but not in all ways.

> Mike:
> Bill, who works with goblins, seems to have a good grasp of their 
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?

Magpie:
I think the point is just that Wizards can pick and choose which type 
of culture they should endeavor to understand and empathize with, 
period. And that they make that decision based on what suits them 
better. So it's not like there's a feeling of respecting each culture 
equally--they don't. In fact, often it's considered a good thing for 
them to try to impose their own views on other cultures, not just 
with Goblins.

Mike:
 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>).

Magpie:
I'm not sure why not. We've got many Wizards in canon, and every one 
who gives a view on house elves that I can remember sees them as 
slaves, even the ones who are the "good ones" who care about house 
elves--so why would I think that's only a narrow view? The Wizards 
are humans and see them the way human readers do. That house elves 
may see themselves as something other than slaves despite conforming 
to every bit of the definition of slave (unlike merpeople and fish) 
doesn't change that Wizards, who are human, have never indicated they 
understand them any differently than I do.

-m