House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180816

> > Magpie:
> > We're not, I don't think, claiming to have a practical solution. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> That's amazing. You do not claim to have a practical solution, but 
> you nevertheless castigating wizards for maintaining status quo? 
> 
> Basically the current situation is bad, there is no way to make it 
> any better, but current situation and wizards are bad nevertheless, 
> because if we look only on part of what is going on it reminds us 
of 
> human slavery.

Magpie:
I don't see why it's so amazing. It's a fictional world full of 
holes. The author has created House Elves, creatures that conform to 
a lot of common pro-slavery arguments. I don't see why I should have 
to pretend that I see the freedom of House Elves as impossible when 
canon doesn't really prove that--even though that's not something I 
care about one way or the other. I can't pretend to think Wizards 
have House Elf slaves because they care about House Elves when I 
definitely don't believe that--it's completely OOC for the WW that I 
know.

There is no situation to make better--the story is over. I don't 
really care about House Elves being slaves--definitely not enough to 
castigate fictional Wizards about it. I'm just saying what I see in 
canon. I see Harry in the end as a happy slave owner. It's a fantasy 
that involves slaves.

I think Carol's arguments about why it's bad to free House Elves are 
very valid--I think they're the logical conclusion to draw from the 
series. I just also think it's an argument in favor of slavery rather 
than against slavery: They like being slaves, it's impractical to 
free them, it's not bad if they like it etc. Those are arguments for 
why slavery is good in this situation. 

> Magpie:
> We're, 
> > describing the situation as it is. House Elves are slaves. 
Slavery 
> > being bad is of course an opinion. 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, you are not IMO. You are not describing situation as it is. You 
> are taking part of what is happening with house elves and which 
> looks as human slavery and claiming that is bad and everything else 
> for some strange reason which I cannot understand becomes a 
separate 
> issue. But if we add to 
> this the house elves wanting the situation to remain as is, picture 
> becomes different IMO.

Magpie:
I'm describing the situation how I see it. I just said that 'slavery 
is bad' is an opinion. House elves being slaves is not an opinion, 
that's canon. They're owned. I don't think it's slavery because 
it "looks like" human slavery, I think it's slavery because slavery 
means being owned by another person and being subject to their will. 
There's plenty of ways it *doesn't* look like human slavery, but that 
doesn't make it not slavery. House Elf nature just makes people have 
different reactions to the idea of them being enslaved. Slaves being 
happy or wanting to be slaves has never had any bearing on their 
being slaves.


> Magpie:
> > I obviously don't know enough to say exactly how to go about it. 
> > However I do reject the idea that they can't be freed period, or 
> that 
> > Wizards can't free them because they care so much about House 
> Elves 
> > welfare.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay then, you do reject the idea that they cannot be freed period. 
> How can they be freed without causing them further harm? Further 
> harm to elves I mean?

Magpie:
I'd have to make stuff up and speculate outside of canon to come up 
with something so I don't know how helpful that would be. That's why 
I don't accept the idea that canon has in any way proved that it's 
just impossible and there's nothing to be done, or assume that all 
the stuff people speculate about on that side is true. 

The point is, I don't want to crawl inside of canon and come up with 
a solution. I'm making a more meta argument. I agree that your 
argument that it's not bad slavery or isn't slavery because they like 
it and Carol's argument that it's more humane to keep them owned 
because they can't live any other way are perfectly logical 
conclusions to draw from the series. I think that's what the series 
seems to be saying too. I just don't think that's an anti-slavery 
argument. It doesn't make it not slavery by any definition of slavery 
I've ever heard. 


> Magpie: 
> > Wizards don't make decisions based on that, they make decisions 
> based 
> > on what's good for themselves. House elves' desires go along with 
> > theirs so they accomodate them. Goblins' don't, so they don't 
> bother 
> > themselves about upsetting them by imposing their own views. 
> Werewolves 
> > are just as bereft without jobs as House Elves, but Wizards pass 
> laws 
> > against them working (even though that is potentially even more 
> > dangerous because werewolves get hungry).
> 
> Alla:
> 
> That's just not what is happening in canon IMO. Some wizards 
clearly 
> care about what is happening to house elves - about their desires, 
> some wizards do not. Those who care portrayed as good guys, those 
> who do not - as bad guys. 

Magpie:
Yes, they're caring slave owners. House Elves are lucky to be owned 
by them.

But you claimed that the reason House Elf slavery existed was because 
Elves wanted it and so Wizards had to do it, and that goes beyond 
noting that Herimone, Dumbledore, Harry, Ron and others have 
canonically cared about the well-being of House Elves. If we're 
talking about why the institution of House Elf slavery exists the way 
it was, I don't think it holds up at all to say that it exists 
because Wizards honor the desires and customs of this other race. 
Because we see them happy to override the desires of other races when 
they conflict with them--I can't think of a single other institution 
in Wizard society that's based on that principle. So I still believe 
just as strongly that the reason they've got this set up with House 
Elves is not because Wizards felt obligated to do what House Elves 
wanted, but because what House Elves want was beneficial to Wizards. 
There are times when House Elves get what they want under the system 
too. But even the Wizards you hold up as caring about House Elves 
make their own needs a priority. 


> 
> 
> Magpie:
> > Imo the biggest barrier to House Elf freedom isn't that it causes 
> > problems because there are unemployed House Elves (not sure 
> exactly 
> > what kinds of problems that would cause for Wizards anyway) but 
> that 
> > Wizards don't want it that much. That's why they back down so 
> quickly 
> > in the face of what House Elves want on this issue where they 
> don't 
> > back down to Goblins or Werewolves or Giants. So they haven't 
even 
> > tried to find an alternate solution.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> What alternate solution? And how do you know that this is why they 
> back down so quickly and not because they do care? Dumbledore 
> offered freedom to ALL Hogwarts elves, do you think that maybe when 
> he backed down he indeed was truly concerned about House elves 
needs?

Magpie:
The alternate solution that they haven't tried to find, obviously. I 
can hardly describe something that doesn't exist. I think if House 
Elf slavery was really an issue Wizards cared about yeah, they would 
try to find some solution. I've never seen any indication that 
anybody cares that much and on the contrary I have canonical support 
for the average Wizard not caring. We've seen some individual Wizards 
caring enough to offer House Elves their freedom before they settle 
into being slave owner. Since they don't want it, the pov of the 
books seems to be that it's fine. Which seems to be what you're 
arguing as well. I'm not disagreeing with that. That seems to be the 
same conclusion drawn by everyone and the author in canon. But I 
don't think this makes the condition not slavery. Rather I think it's 
created a condition in which slavery is supposed to be a good thing. 
What a great fantasy for the would-be slave owner. It's great.


> Magpie:
>  Who knows what would happen if 
> > House Elves were brought up with freedom? The other Elves were 
> > disgusted by Dobby's situation (still serving, but free and paid) 
> but 
> > he's alive until he's stabbed to death. Winky feels disgraced and 
> her 
> > disgrace leads to self-destructive behavior, but she doesn't die 
> either.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> But this was horrible what was happening to Winky IMO. Are you 
> saying that solution would be to put all house elves through what 
> she went?

Magpie:
A practical solution would have to take this into account. It might 
not be easy. (Though I wonder how many Wizards even then would 
personally care unless it directly affected them.)

Alla:
> And I wonder how would you even free House elves? Are you 
suggesting 
> to force them to take clothes for example?

Magpie:
Freeing a house elf isn't itself undoable--Winky is let go against 
her wishes. The trouble isn't being unable to free them but the 
problems that would result for them and the Wizards.

-m