House elves (WAS: realistic solutions)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180820

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Alla: 
> > > But they also LIKE that arrangement as long as they are not 
> abused. 
> > > In what society is that happening to slaves?
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > For one thing it is a separate issue. To say they like being 
owned 
> is 
> > to say that they like being slaves. Because being owned means 
> being a 
> > slave. In any language known to me, at least. 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I know I can be unclear but 
> I cannot believe that I am that unclear. Please refer to Mike's 
> excellent recent post to see my POV pretty much. (I mean refer not 
> as reread, I see that you replied to him, but just to say that it 
is 
> reflects what I think in much clearer language). I thought he 
> described it very well, but for one more time I am going to be a 
> parrot. YES. I Agree. They ARE owned. And moreover I AGREE in *our 
> language and culture* they can be called slaves. That's the extent 
> of my agreement though. As long as them liking to serve the wizards 
> does not come into play.
> 
> And here we go again. Let me ask you - who determined that this is 
a 
> separate issue? Canon? 

a_svirn:
No, not canon. Logic, I believe. I am sorry: it seems that I am being 
unclear. I get your premise that their liking of what they are make 
all the difference for their (non)being slaves. What I quite honestly 
don't get is why it does not make any difference whatsoever to their 
being owned? All those real life slaves who don't like being slaves 
don't like being owned either. 
 
> Alla:
> They liked it because they did not know better, because they were 
> traumatized and did not know how to be free. Elves like it even 
when 
> they ARE knowing better (have master who offers to pay them, to 
free 
> them, etc

a_svirn:
The same argument can be made about elves. Do they know better? Not 
likely, since they obviously have been owned by wizards for 
centuries. And vice versa – the argument about human slaves' 
different nature has been at play for centuries. 

 
> a_svirn: 
> > In any case, their liking of being owned does NOT change the fact 
> > that they are. Owned. And the fact that being owned means being a 
> > slave. Honestly, every one the thousand of Solomon's concubines 
> > perhaps liked to be owned by him. That doesn't change the fact 
> that 
> > they were concubines. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And who is arguing with this again as long as you are adding the 
> words "in our culture"?

a_svirn:
See above, I guess. 

> Alla:
> 
> AHA. So let me ask you. How do you know that wizards take elves' 
> inclination to serve only when it suits them. Neither Mike no I 
deny 
> that it suits wizards as well obviously. But I see no indication 
> that wizards are not truly concerned about providing what is best 
> for the elves either.
> 
> Good guys that is. Dumbledore tries to improve Hogwarts elves 
> situation and offers freedom, etc. And then he does what they truly 
> want, doesn't he?

a_svirn:
First of all I was using wizards as a generic term. Dumbledore seems 
to be the only one who did indeed something for elves. But then, he 
was an oddity among wizards pretty much like Dobby was an oddity 
among elves. There is no other examples in canon, that I know of. 


> Alla: 
> What IS your solution? You think wizards should free them, whether 
> they want it or not? And if possible, please answer without saying 
> that this is a separate issue, otherwise we cannot go anywhere. To 
> me it is not and I really really want to know what do you suggest 
> they should do if it is to you human slavery,  full stop. Should 
> they do what Russian tsar did and make a law that all elves are 
> free ?
> 
> Suggestions?

a_svirn:
I haven't got any. I've got no facts for starters. I don't know how 
those enchantments work, I don't know much about the current laws 
etc. But I'd like to see Harry more uncomfortable about being a slave-
owner. I'd like Sirius to be fair and not to bend to his will someone 
who obviously doesn't want to have anything to do with him. Actually, 
that's I think the answer – fairness. Neither Harry, nor Sirius is 
fair to Kreacher. They certainly do not take his wishes, inclinations 
etc. into consideration. They simply exercise their right as (slave-) 
owners. I'd like to see a bit of civil activism, not like that stupid 
SPEW thing, but more in a sense of what Dumbledore did. I'd like 
certain awareness among the good guys that it is not quite the thing 
to take advantage of those who are inferior. That's what Sirius 
seemed to preach, but failed to do. 

As for Russia, the reform was so disastrous precisely because there 
wasn't any civil right movement. It was up to the bureaucracy to do 
the thing, no wonder they messed-up. It is pitiful, honestly, that 
not even single one of Decembrists bothered to set their own serfs 
free. (And they could do it under 1803 legislation.) They scribbled 
away drafts of constitutions, but they wouldn't set an example with 
their own peasants. Of course the reform failed. But does it mean 
that they had to leave serfs as they were? 

> Alla:
> 
> I would love to know the actual answer to Mike's question, because 
> to me the answer to you is very simple. <SNIP> 
> But should we FREE him? Should we FREE Kreacher? 

a_svirn:
My answer? Kreacher should serve where he wants to serve. He wants to 
serve the true heirs of the Noble House of Black? Well, let him. It 
is not FAIR to force him to serve someone who is repugnant to him. 

a_svirn