House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 180775

> Magpie:
> Sure the societies can be different, but that doesn't mean this 
> particular area is different.

Alla:

Well, yes that is where our difference of opinion comes from

Magpie:
 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. 


Alla:

Truly, had I not read the interviews at all I would be absolutely 
thinking that this is another world being introduced, parallel to 
ours but a very different one. IMO of course. 

I mean, there are obvious similarities, but so many differences too 
IMO and I would not say that it is the same as our world had I not 
read the interviews. The most I would say that witches and wizards 
can experience human emotions and that pretty much it.

I mean, Potterverse closed off from our world almost completely 
centuries ago, just like in some science fiction stories  people are 
run off from their native land and establish new worlds.

To me the fact that they have magic points to fundamental difference 
between their world and ours – the things they can do because of it, 
etc.

I know it is not so, but as I said only from interviews, since in so 
many instances they behave not like our society would.
 
>> 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. <SNIP>

Alla:

The beneficial to the slave part? I mean you ( generic you) keep 
saying that elf's POV does not matter, but wizards ARE aware of that 
POV that elves indeed live to serve the master, and to me it is 
very  different from human slavery. That to me changes everything, I 
mean if I want to keep owning house elf because it is good for him ( 
and of course good for me) is different from human slavery because 
it is not good for human to be owned.


Magpie:
 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.

Alla:

Do they know how much power they have over their elves if the 
enchantment of self punishment had being lifted? Was Lucius aware of 
what Dobby can do if he puts himself to the task?



Magpie: 
> 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.


Alla:

Did American south slave owners know for a fact that elves live to 
serve the wizards? Did they know for a fact that their human slaves 
would be HAPPY as long as they serve them and treated well? I really 
doubt it.

 
> 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? <SNIP>

Alla:

No not at all. We are talking about what is happening to house elves 
to be considered slavery in one society and not one in another.

Magpie:
>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.

Alla:

Well, although I remember these arguments as well, but I am 
referencing the exact arguments as I described - that what Snape 
doing is child abuse in our society but perfectly acceptable in WW 
and its values. Links are as always happily provided upon request.
But  I was not talking about Snape and Harry.

 > 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. 


Alla:

I am referencing a very specific argument, you are bringing up 
completely different one, the one which I was not referencing. So, 
again the argument I reference goes like this - what Snape does 
would be child abuse under our system, but NOT child abuse under WW 
and its values, because the world is so rough and kids need to be 
prepared. I am talking about Snape and as long as we are at it, 
McGonagall's treatment of Neville. I want to see one reference in 
canon where his treatment is at least acknowledged as mean, by any 
authority figure, NOT by Harry of course.

It seems like what is being done to Neville is perfectly acceptable 
under WW values and I want to see a school in US. where threatening 
to poison child's pet would go well.

Oh, I also want to see where child services will not take a child 
from his home where his uncle will through him from the window 
hoping that child will fly or something. 

Oh, and I do not know one school where game like Quidditch where 
players could be killed or disappear for months will be allowed?

THAT is to me shows completely different values of the society, 
because those kids can endure more, no?


I see the argument for "slavery" being the same. Just as wizardlings 
can be perfectly okay while being thrown out of the window or even 
when they fall down on the Quidditch field ( which child in our 
world would be okay after that?), elves 
are perfectly happy to serve wizards if they are not being abused 
IMO.

And as long as we are at Harry and Snape, I do not remember any 
authority figure acknowledging that Snape was being mean to him. Oh, 
Dumbledore acknowledged Snape's unfairness finally but it seemed to 
me to be connected to Snape hating Lily's son and nothing school 
related, even when he talks about detention.

But again I was not talking about Harry.


Magpie:
> 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 key difference to me that it IS good for house elves, it seems, 
as long as they will not punish themselves, so if wizards know that 
it IS good for house elves and good for them too, why again it is 
bad and they should not proceed as long as house elves are treated 
well?

> 
> 
> 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. <SNIP>


Alla:

I get that, but my question is if one is not imposing their values 
on that society, why is it not okay for that society? Why is it not 
okay for wizards to own the elves, if that is what elves really and 
truly want? To serve the wizards I mean. 

Humans are not born to serve other humans, that is not a natural 
order of things, with elves it seems to be exactly natural order.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
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. Improvement for the Elves will therefore depend on
people understanding that there are negative consequences to the
status quo which can be averted if things are changed. <SNIP>


Alla:

That was well said Pippin. I also did not expect Harry to resolve 
all problems of potterverse at the end and see ambiguousness in 
house elves' situation and the signs that it will improve.

I believe that elves are slaves, but again I believe mostly because 
of the interviews,  but I certainly do not see same reaction from 
them as human slaves.

For the longest time I was wondering about Dobby, since I do not 
think that JKR would go to all that trouble to present the elf who 
wants to be free, only to say that he is an oddball.

But today I had a thought. Another one of Harry's close friends 
Hagrid also braced us with insight which we know turns out to be 
wrong. Maybe indeed Dobby was introduced to show that exceptions 
only prove the rule.

JMO,

Alla