House elves (WAS: realistic solutions)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180799

Re: House elves (WAS: realistic solutions) 


> 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?

a_svirn:
I don't see why I should equate them to anything. What do you equate
wizards to? There is no such thing in real life either. What do you
equate bankers who have different notions of property and ownership
than humans to? Montavilla47 suggested writers and artists. But you
don't entrust artist and writers your money, do you? It is hard to
pidgin-hole goblin banking practices, but we do not dispute the fact
that they are bankers. House-elves' slavery might be a weird thing to
account for, but it is still slavery.

> 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?

a_svirn:
Well, it is.

> Mike:
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?#

a_svirn:
Dobby and Kreacher were owned against their wills too. You'll say
Kreacher changed his opinion of Harry? So what? Does it make it OK
for Harry to own anyone against their will? I don't think so. It is
the same argument as with Lupin – it doesn't matter that he became
reconciled with Tonks and even happy about his fatherhood. Harry
still had no business to call him names.

>
> 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.

a_svirn:
Where exactly in canon do we read any such thing? Unless you mean the
infamous self-punishment? No one seems to be concerned about it,
except Hermione, least of all elves themselves.


> 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.

a_svirn:
Well, they shouldn't. But that's not exactly what I was saying. I was
saying that to use elves' inclination to serve as a justification for
slavery is not altogether genuine. Because wizards only take magical
creatures' inclinations into account because and when it suits them
(wizards, that is). When it doesn't like with Kreacher in OotP and
HBP they don't. Why should they listen to slaves?

I would also like to point out that the need to serve does not
necessarily translate into the need of being someone's property.
Instinct to serve may be a part of their nature, but tea towels,
pillow-cases, clothes etc. are parts of human culture. Wearing a
pillow-case isn't natural anymore, than wearing military uniform is
natural. Office of House-Elf Relocation is a wizarding organization,
not elvish. And the slavery in itself is a wizarding institution. In
other words, the trappings of the whole thing are wizarding, not
elvish. Wizards are the ones who determine their status as slaves,
not elves themselves.

> Mike:
> 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?

a_svirn:
And wizards have no problems with forcing magical creatures to accept
human values when it suits them. Not being allowed wands, being some
particular wizard's property is not something that originated from
elves' values, you know.

> Mike:>
> 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."

a_svirn:
Should we ignore a poor elf, which I bend to my will for no better
reason that I can? No, that's not true, I have a better reason. I am
a good person and I use my elf for the Greater Good, never mind that
every one of my orders is repugnant to him and causes deep distress.
I know that I am right. Because I am one of the good guys.