Realistic Resolutions - WAS: Slytherins come back

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180763

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> > 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. 

a_svirn:
Do you know, Mike, whales are swim feed and live under water and they 
are not fish. And dolphins, and porpoises etc. It is possible for 
living and even mythological creatures to live under water and 
without being fish. It is not possible for a person – and house elves 
are persons, even if they aren't humans – to be owned without being a 
slave.

> 
> > 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).

a_svirn:
There is no reason why they should *accept* anything. No one 
certainly asks them to. They are slaves from a human point of view, 
and wizards are human. In human, more specifically English language 
owning someone as a property, have this someone completely subjected 
to one's will and divested of their own will means owning a slave. 
> 
> 
> > > 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.

a_svirn:
His attitude is that they like being slaves. If you say that they 
like being something they are not it simply wouldn't make sense. 


> 
> > > 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:
I really don't think it is answered. And it isn't even derogatory – 
for a nag. A small pony or horse can be called a nag, and it won't be 
insulting. Whereas for a centaur it will be an insult *and* an 
untruth. 

> > 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:
Well, I do. I don't like the ways of that particular world. 
> 
> 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?

a_svirn:
I didn't say they should. I said they don't. They don't accept 
goblins' altitude because it does not suit them, and they accept 
elves' attitude because it does. They want to keep the property they 
bought and they want to keep elves as their property. What goblins or 
elves think or want does not matter for them. 

a_svirn