House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180768

> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> 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. <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, actually I challenge the idea that wizards have the same 
> understanding of the human construct of slavery that we do. Oh, it 
> looks like slavery all right, but the very same actions and events 
> in the different society can be something totally different by the 
> way.

Magpie:
I see no indication that's the case in the WW. The WW is in many ways 
based on our world with a lot of recognizable things in it--often 
things that are idealized versions of stuff that used to be true in 
the Muggle world--for instance, they use trains because trains have a 
certain romanticism and nostalgic quality.

But where does anyone ever suggest that they understand slavery in a 
different way than humans do? They differ from modern British people 
in that they think it's okay, and they have certain races they see as 
their natural servants, but that doesn't make it something other than 
slavery. The word slavery has bad connotations because of the thing 
it describes not the other way around. If somebody started calling 
slaves in the American South "gleebils" the same problems would be 
there. 

Seems, actually, that if we're going to try to break that down we 
ought to also breakdown this idea that certain Purebloods are bigoted 
towards Muggle-borns. Who says they're really prejudiced or racists, 
after all? Maybe they're understanding of things is just different 
than ours. Just because it completely mirrors what we would call 
bigotry doesn't mean it is. (Trouble is, if it isn't bigotry what is 
it and what point is it?)

The books themselves and the Wizards make all the same distinctions 
we humans do every time--how are they doing that if their 
understanding is actually different than orus? Muggle-born Hermione 
we know has the same ideas about it that we do, since she's a Muggle 
(same with Harry). Her misunderstanding that gets corrected is that 
slaves will accept freedom if it's offered to them, not that they 
aren't free. But all the characters who are from the Wizarding world 
accept the same definitions--they all talk of "freedom" being the 
thing house elves aren't, they all note the difference between being 
paid for work you do of your own free will and being compelled to 
work for a master, they all make the distinction of being owned vs. 
not being owned, being master of your own person or not. I can't 
think of a single place in canon where there's any hint that these 
people understand the arrangement any differently than I do, 
including my pov character Harry.

Alla:
> Have you ever read the book "Swordspoint" by Ellen Kushner for 
> example?
> 
> If you did, I am sure you will agree with me that this society does 
> not think of itself as society of mass murderers. But, um, there 
are 
> swordsmen who can be hired to kill anybody basically at any point 
> and this is considered a job as any other and every noble of the 
> society basically accepts that his life can end at any time and if 
> it is done by following couple of rules, those swordsmen do not get 
> punished or put to prison, etc.

Magpie:
I see no indication that the WW *doesn't* consider themselves slave 
owners. Slavery being accepted and seen as natural doesn't make it 
not slavery--it's not even that unusual. I think the idea that they 
don't see it this way is the more extravagant claim, so the burden of 
proof is on it.

Alla:
> Same thing with house elves - how do you know that if it looks like 
> slavery to you ( and me) that human wizards consider it to be the 
> same thing as  we do?
> 
> I know I do not know that. I mean, I LIKE interviews and freely use 
> them, so I do not doubt that JKR intended to portray slavery, but 
> where is it in canon that human wizards think of it as such?
> 
> We agree that elves want to serve, don't we and the main issue is 
> whether it is disgusting for human wizards to accept them a such?
> 
> Well, how do we know that they think of house elves as slaves?

Magpie:
Harry and Hermione *are* us, as Muggle-raised, so we already know 
they have our pov. We don't see Harry go through any change in his 
understanding of what his role is re: house elves who wait on him. 
The book has everyone make the same distinctions we humans do, 
particularly between free and not free, paid and unpaid, master 
and...gleebil. House elves are treated as property. Ron, our 
Pureblood character, never explains some other thing that they really 
are when the subject comes up over and over--he, Hermione and Harry 
never have any misunderstanding as to what they are. Does Hermione 
ever use the word slave? Because if she does I don't recall Ron or 
anyone else correcting her. We know the word slave exists in the WW.

Basically, I can't even imagine what other understandings Wizards 
could have about house elves that wouldn't just recreate attitudes 
towards slaves in our world. How is it that you think they understand 
them that makes it not like a slave owner describing his relationship 
to his slave?

-m