House elves (WAS: realistic solutions)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 180822


Alla:
<SNIP>
> > 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.

Alla:

I do not get this logic. Here how it looks to me. Say we are 
discussing Prank. I defend Sirius and you defend Snape. I say that 
the only issue to discuss is whether Snape was eavesdropping to get 
Marauders into trouble and the issue of whether he knew that Remus 
was a werewolf and that he will meet a werewolf there is completely 
separate issue. This issue makes no bearing on the situation 
whatsoever.

And you will respond with the only issue to discuss is whether 
Sirius tried to kill Snape or just to scare him and whether Snape 
was eavesdropping does not really matter.

And both our imaginary responses look bizarre to me, because it 
seems to me that both of us are arbitrarily excluding the issues 
which should be discussed together, otherwise the assesment of the 
situation is incomplete. One of them cannot be discussed without 
another IMO.

Same here - I do not see how the issue whether house elves are 
slaves or not can be discussed without the fact that they are liking 
to serve wizards.


a_svirn:
 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. 

Alla:

YAY.

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:

I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of the first sentence 
here. What does not make any difference to their being owned? The 
fact that they like it? Could you clarify please?


> 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. 


Alla:

I do not see how it can be. The only reason I am able to make this 
argument about human slaves is because I know better in 
retrospective. After reading the psychological explanations, etc. I 
see no reason that house elves have the same thoughts processes as 
humans and I see how freed elves feel and I believe therefore they 
DO know better. IMO of course. They tried the taste of freedom and 
rejected it.


> > 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:

Sorry, unclear again I am afraid. 
 
> 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. 
<SNIP>


Alla:

But it is a circular argument IMO. You want them to be uncomfortable 
as slave owners because you think of them as slave owners. I think 
of them as house elf owners.

But in any event, this is not exactly the question I was asking for.

Doesn't canon suggest loud and clear that Sirius' behavior towards 
Kreacher and Harry's behavior towards him was indeed wrong?

So, I do not disagree - fairness should be exercised, but my 
question was, I thought you were suggesting they should be freed.

And that what I was asking you about. If you were not suggesting 
that they should be freed, just that wizards be fairer to them, I am 
not sure what are we arguing about.

 
> > 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. 
>

Alla:

Yes of course and I thought it was clear that Kreacher at the end 
wants very much to serve under Harry, no?

So, what again is wrong with his situation and how it should be 
rectified? Are you saying he still does not want to serve under 
Harry?

He did not want in HBP, but now he seems very wanting to me, the 
little bastard.


Goddlefrood:

<SNIP>

Also, having thought about this a little since the last time I
posted on the subject, there is one quite big difference between
house-elves and human slaves. That is the fact that they at no
time during the course of the books are traded. They belong to
a family, or perhaps, like hobs, to a location. This latter
would explain why there are concentrations of elves in certain
spots, Hogwarts being the one location in the books that we are
aware of that has multiple elves.  <SNIP>


Alla:

Yes, brilliant post. Another difference it looks to me indeed and 
those are again the folklor roots of the elves. We also have 
brownies, etc. But it seems like hob I am learning about for the 
first time. THANKS :)

So, here we have JKR mixing two folklore creatures together IMO and 
getting house elf - creature that attached to location and likes to 
serve, fictional one. I just do not see it as slavery.

Alla