House elves (WAS: realistic solutions)

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 180795

Mike:
Some of this conversation is getting silly, fun but still silly. I 
believe I'll drop the merpeople=fish part analogy. When we start 
talking about what can or can't live under water, the analogy has 
lost all value.

Let me concede right here that slave is a perfectly valid definition 
of the elvish position. I also agree that as English speaking humans, 
the characters would correctly refer to elves as slaves. Doesn't 
Hermione call it slave labor in GoF? Harry is introduced to the term 
because he met Dobby first, and I'm sure it's Ron's interpretation as 
well. Curious that none of the adults use the term, not even 
Dumbledore, but that is of no matter.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180767
a_svirn:
Not determine, or judge, Alla, describe! We are talking about
description. <snip>
I describe wizards in terms of my own culture, and in terms of my 
culture they are slaves-owners

Mike:
If we were only talking about a definition, I would end this post 
right here. But we're not. When I say that I don't think of elves as 
slaves it's me putting them in the context of the story. As a 
definition, slave works fine. But as a conceptual pigeon-hole to put 
them in, it skews the understanding of the situation. They are not 
human slaves, yet if you define them in terms of your own culture, 
what do you have to equate them to other than human slaves?

Ron and the twins were excoriated in this forum for saying that the 
elves like it. After all, that excuse was used for ages to justify 
human slavery. Then it turns out that elves *do* like it, in fact it 
appears they won't survive without it. That means to me that the 
simple term of slavery does not fully explain or completely identify 
house elves within their context inside the WW.

So what do the wizards do about it?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180773
Magpie:
We're not talking about what values they have, we're talking about
how they understand the relationship between house elf and master.

Mike:
But how can we evaluate that relationship without taking the 
character's values into consideration? Yes, they own elves in a 
master-slave relationship. Should that be the extent of it, should we 
say slavery is bad, full stop? Or should we allow that there is more 
in play here, that this isn't the same as in our world with humans 
put in bondage against their wills and their human nature?

If we're talking about the morality of the situation, I think it's 
incumbent upon the wizards to decide what's appropriate for all the 
players. They must look at the ramifications of their choices on the 
elves as well as themselves. 


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180739
a_svirn:
If I think that slavery is abominable, I will not keep a slave only
because it's a done thing and they like it just fine. <snip>
 If I had a slave, it would be because I would suit me just fine. 
Suit *me*, not my slave. And I find it revolting that owning slaves 
is something wizards happily do.

Mike:
So, for you it's all about slavery, full stop. As I said before, if 
that's your position, that's a valid reading of canon. For me, that's 
an incomplete reading of canon. I think in the context, wizards have 
two choices that must be weighed for their morality; they can refuse 
to be slave owners (your position), or they can accept that elves 
need to serve wizard masters (my position). 

My reading of canon is that wizards must consider what is best for 
the elves. And what's best for elves is to let them serve wizards 
under the best possible conditions. As Harry discovered, elf freedom 
is antithetical to their base constitution. As long as the WW moves 
to remove the self-punishment enchantment, as Hermione seems to be 
advocating even if she never said that in so many words, that would 
result in the best possible situation for the elves. That it will 
also benefit the wizards that own the elves, I don't deny.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180739
a_svirn:
So what? I wasn't discussing elvish point of view.

Mike:
But how is that fair for the wizards or the elves? You seem to be 
advocating the wizards make the decision in a vacuum. To hell with 
what the elves want, wizards shouldn't own slaves. Period. 

So would you care what happens to the elves if wizards made it law 
that elves cannot be slaves? Are you taking Hermione's GoF position 
that elves must be free, or that they must be paid and have days off? 
That, imo, would be forcing elves to accept human values, or worse, 
force a traumatic change that elves can't live with. And if that were 
the case, how would that be the more moralistic position?


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180763
a_svirn:
I don't like the ways of that particular world.

Mike:
I'm seeing that.

I'm trying to analyze what is appropriate for the context and not to 
simply impose real world values. The way I read the house elves, the 
best for all concerned was to allow them to be their slavish servant 
selves, and for wizards to accept that cultural condition.

I think the "wizards should not own slaves" position would be self-
centered and self-congratulatory, and that it ignores the 
consequences of that stance. If Harry were to give Kreacher clothes, 
imo that would be Harry saying, "Look at me, I'm a good person. Just 
ignore that destitute elf I've kicked to the curb."

Mike