House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180773

> > 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.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Society can be similar to another society in something and 
> completely different in another. Yes, they use trains; no we do not 
> use wands for example.
> 
> But as I said before I DO think that Potterverse is in many ways 
> reflection of our world. The trouble is I got this from interviews 
> only, so should it count?

Magpie:
Sure the societies can be different, but that doesn't mean this 
particular area is different. I'm not getting that the Potterverse is 
like our world from interviews, I'm getting it from reading the 
books. In the case of the house elves, I get my understanding of the 
way they're viewed and the way their masters interact with them from 
the books too. 


> Magpie:
> > 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.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I think it does. I think it does if society considers it to be so. 
> And I just do not see indication that they understand slavery in 
the 
> same way we do, so making an opposite assumption to me is just an 
> assumption.

Magpie:
Here's where I get my impression that they see them as what we would 
call slaves: They claim them as property. They have to do what their 
masters say. They live to serve their masters. 

What does it mean to say they don't understand slavery the same way 
we do? The only differences I see in the way they understand it and 
the way we do is that they hold the belief that it is the natural 
order, that it's beneficial to the elf, that it isn't immoral on the 
part of the owner. That's certainly a different view from the modern 
view of slavery, but I don't see how it makes it not the exact thing 
that we would call slavery. How are you suggesting they understand it 
that's so different from the way I do? Because I've never yet in the 
book found any Wizard to not be on exactly the same page I am when it 
comes to understanding this aspect of the house elf system. We might 
have different reactions to it, but it's not like I'm mistaken about 
the elves being owned, being subject to their master's will etc. They 
know how much power they have over elves as much as I do.

Perhaps if I showed them a scene from the antebellum American South 
they might say, "OMG, that's awful! We are nothing like that!" 
because they'd see treating a human that way very different than 
treating a house elf that way, but I don't think that would mean they 
had a different understanding of the way they relate to house elves.

 
> Magpie:
>  > 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?)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh yeah, absolutely. I do not subscribe to this argument, but I 
> think it is a very valid one. But let's take something we all know 
> and love - Snape ;).
> 
> For years I argued that he is a stinking child abuser and still 
> think so. The trouble is I think I AM imposing very much the values 
> of my own society when I think this. I think I can do it because 
> again I think that Potterverse is envisioned as reflection of our 
> society first and foremost, but those who do not think so, can 
> certainly tell me - child abuse, what child abuse?

Magpie:
Okay, so we're talking about "slavery" being a slippery term like 
child abuse that's in the eye of the beholder? So basically it's like 
Wizards saying they're not enslaved enough to be considered slaves? I 
understand the thought process but it still doesn't seem to at all 
reflect the Wizard's view of house elves. In the case of child abuse 
it's people saying, "Sure Snape's being mean, but it's not abuse if 
he's not really damaging Harry or hitting him" or whatever. With 
Wizards and house elves they seem to be perfectly happy to say that 
yes indeed the slaves are property and are truly owned by them, which 
seems to be deconstructing the word "slave" to the point where it 
doesn't mean anything. If anything Wizards have far more power over 
elves and elves have even less freedom and power than human slaves 
because they are so tied to their master's will they have to punish 
themselves for disobeying it. Their body is "owned" by their master 
even more than a human slave's is.

Alla:
> 
> Kids in our society ( I am talking about american society right 
now) 
> do not have to prepare themselves for the war with evil wizard, 
> don't they?
> 
> Kids in our society do not have to be ready to face trolls, 
dracons, 
> centaurs, etc. For all I know they may need a harsher task master 
> and certainly WW seems to have no trouble with Snape's teaching, 
> don't they?
> 
> Do I like it? OF COURSE NOT. I would do whatever it takes to make 
> sure that teacher like Snape ever been remotely close to any child 
> of mine, but WW does and I think they are having very very 
different 
> values in that aspect.

Magpie:
Yes, they have different values in that they think it's *okay* to 
have a teacher doing what Snape is doing. They think Snape's rough 
treatment of Harry is good because it prepares him for his battles. 
They're not disagreeing that Snape is treating Harry roughly or 
picking on him. This is openly acknowledged by everyone. 

In the case of the house elves, I can't remember any Wizard denying 
that their owned house elf was owned, or that they weren't free. They 
disagree that this is a bad thing, not that it's the way it is.

Nobody's disagreeing that the WW has a different view on the persons 
known as house elves being owned in that they think it's normal and 
okay and good for the elves. They still own them.


Alla:
> The actions are the same, they just evaluate them differently IMO.

Magpie:
Yes, the actions are the same and that's what I'm talking about. Me 
and Ron don't disagree at all about what's going on with the house 
elves. We just disagree on how acceptable it is to be part of that 
system.


> Magpie:
> > 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?<SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> See above - WW seems to have VERY different understanding from what 
> kind of teachers are allowed to be near kids than I do. To me it is 
> a strong indicator of the society with the different values in some 
> aspects of life if not all.

Magpie:
We're not talking about what values they have, we're talking about 
how they understand the relationship between house elf and master. In 
that they are no different than the way I understand it. They have a 
different reaction than I do, but we see it the same way.
 
> > 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:
> 
> I have to prove something that is not spelled in canon once as far 
> as I know? No word slavery, but assumption is made that it is 
> slavery? I really do not think so. IMO of course.

Magpie:
Because it is spelled out in canon. They're owned, they have to do 
what their master says, they're passed down like property, their 
master has power over them. Where is that not spelled out? Nobody has 
ever suggested anything other than that is happening. The 
disagreement is only in what, if anything, is wrong with that in 
itself.

Alla:
> I believe it is slavery, but this is again from what interview you 
> quote. So they call wizards masters, so what?  Does it mean that it 
> is the same thing as in our society? Why?

Magpie:
For me, yes, it is the same thing as it is in our society for the 
same reason I understand pretty much every other thing that happens 
in the book.
 
> > Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> > 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. 
> <SNIP>
 
> Alla:
> 
> House elves are treated as somebody who wants to serve don't they? 
> and there is unspoken rule that they should be treated well, just 
as 
> swordsman should have a guy who hired him, then it is not murder. 
As 
> long as something is done by the rule, it is totally fine for those 
> societies it seems.

Magpie:
They're treated like property who must serve whether they want to 
serve or not, actually. I agree that it's totally fine in this 
society "as long as it is done by the rules" (those rules being 
slippery). An "unspoken rule" that they should be treated well (based 
on one Wizard or another's idea of what it means to treat them well) 
doesn't make them free. That's pretty much the way I believe it works 
with human slaves too, minus the assumption that they generally want 
to serve.
> 
> 
> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
>  How is it that you think they understand 
> > them that make it not like a slave owner describing his 
> relationship 
> > to his slave?
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> If we are talking about good wizards per canon, I think as long as 
> they are not abused, it is a normal custom of the society, but 
again 
> it is funny since I do think they are slaves, I just see plenty of 
> evidence for other side interpretation.

Magpie:
But where is being "a normal custom of the society" not a slave? 
Slaves are and have been a normal custom of lots of societies. They 
almost always are, actually, because if slavery is illegal they can't 
be legally trafficked. Good wizards don't own their house elves any 
less than bad Wizards do. They might abuse their power less or not, 
but they have the same power.

> 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.

Pippin:
Where does canon indicate that it's good? Does anyone finish the
story and want to be a House Elf? Or think that Harry, Ron or
Hermione should replace Kreacher with another Elf when
Kreacher dies?

Magpie:
Who said anything about wanting to be a house elf? It's being a house 
elf owner that's the sweet deal. Should they replace Kreacher when he 
dies? Sure, why not? Wouldn't you miss the wonderful cooking and 
somebody doing all your cleaning for you?

Pippin:
Sure, we might want to own a House Elf if we could fool ourselves
into thinking we'd always treat them kindly, but how is that
different than wishing we could sample a dose of amortentia or
experience the bliss of an Imperius curse?

Magpie:
Exactly why I think owning a slave is problematic whether the slave 
is happy or willing or not. But I doubt JKR would say Harry or 
Hermione couldn't be trusted with the responsibility.

Magpie:
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.

Pippin:
Treating something in a guilt-free way, for instance by treating
alcoholism as a disease instead of a moral failing, does not mean that
there is nothing wrong with it. But the alcoholic does not choose to
become an addict so we don't blame him for that even if he gets 
benefits from drinking.

Magpie:
How is this supposed to be relevent? I don't see Harry's final 
thoughts on his house elf reading at all like an ominous note of 
Harry being on his way to alcoholism by ending the book reaching for 
a drink. I don't read any hints of danger in the text in Harry owning 
Kreacher.

Pippin:

Harry did not choose to make Kreacher his slave, so why should he
feel morally diminished by owning him? Kreacher would feel as hurt if
Harry refused to let him cook or clean as if Harry tried to pay him.
If I were Harry, I might want to contribute the wages Kreacher
should be earning to SPEW or its successor. But I don't think
Rowling was obliged to tell us that in order to round out the story.

Magpie:
Yes, Harry didn't choose to make Kreacher his slave and there's no 
indication that he's morally diminished by his enjoying him as one. 
Enjoying him as one. No, JKR didn't have to tell of Harry 
contributing his wages to SPEW to round out the story at all. House 
Elf freedom isn't part of the story. She wrote Harry enjoying his elf 
without moral diminishment--since we can assume Harry will be a good 
owner.

Pippin:
I never saw the problems of the wizarding world as something that
JKR was arranging like ninepins so that Harry could knock them down
all in one go. He has no power to make fundamental changes in human
nature -- the impulses that drive people to make slaves are not
going away. 

Magpie:
Harry's not much knocking anything down but righting it again. Far 
from wanting the power to change the impulse to make slaves he's a 
regular guy appreciating the advantages of having one.

Pippin:
The consequences of House Elf slavery aren't the same as the
consequences of human slavery, but they are still negative, and anyone
who reads the books carefully understands what they are. Certainly
the Trio does. 

Magpie:
Sorry, I don't buy that if I read the book "carefully" I'd see 
negative consequences of Harry owning a slave or that the Trio sees 
negative consequences in that aspect of the book. 

Pippin:
How could Harry possibly think the benefits of getting
a sandwich when he wants one compensate for losing Sirius?

Magpie:
No idea what that's supposed to mean. Harry is thinking very much of 
the benefits of getting a sandwich at the end of the book. It doesn't 
have to mean he couldn't think of thousands of more things he'd like 
more than a sandwich, but it's still a nice little comfort to have 
your own house elf to bring you one in bed.

-m