House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180831

> > 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.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> It is amazing to me because this way the other side can never score 
> a single point in this argument.

Magpie:
I think you've got all the points, actually, according to canon. What 
I get from canon is that Harry et al. would love for House Elves to 
be free and happy, but they can't be, because they want to be slaves. 
Harry and his friends didn't create this system, they didn't put any 
enchantment on House Elves. Harry didn't even want to own one, he 
just fell into his lap. But now that he's got him he'll use him, 
especially after Kreacher becomes really happy to serve Harry. Harry 
would offer him freedom if he wanted it (as long as it wouldn't 
conflict with anything important for Harry as it did in HBP), and 
when he gives him orders against Kreacher's will it's only for the 
greater good. So Harry has no reason to be uncomfortable at being the 
master of this person Kreacher.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that as being what's going on in 
canon. I think that's the very argument being made in canon. I just 
also think that argument adds up to being ultimately okay with 
slavery for House Elves since I don't believe "they like it" changes  
the fact that they're owned and therefore slaves.

It is what it is, so it's not like anybody can prove whether they 
could come up with something else that would eventually work. The 
solution canon seems to promote itself is that House Elves remain 
slaves, but there's a responsibility for good people to want them to 
be treated somewhat well by their masters. The idea that elves would 
actually be *free* as a species is dismissed when they're offered 
freedom and they refuse. 

If I were actually in the society I think there are very good reasons 
for looking for ways they could be freed rather than listing the 
reasons they shouldn't be and being happy with that. But this society 
doesn't exist so it doesn't really matter.

Alla:
> Just as here, if one cannot offer any solution other than status 
> quo, doesn't it mean that status quo is better for all parties 
> involved?

Magpie:
Not necessarily. The status quo is always the most obvious solution 
because it's the status quo. If owning other persons is acceptable 
then there's no reason to change that aspect of the status quo. 


> > 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.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I really do not know what to say except to say again that to me 
> being owned and being subject to their will is an incomplete 
> definition of slavery.

Magpie:
What is your definition of slavery then besides being owned and being 
subject to the will of your owner? Because in my experience that's 
been the definition for slavery throughout history. It seems unfair 
to say "and you also have to be miserable and have another situation 
you'd like better" especially since even when we have House Elves who 
don't like their situation and do have one they'd like better, 
they're still stuck with the one they have, just like slaves are.


> Magpie:
>  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.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> But it does in mine.

Magpie:
So in your view Uncle Tom and Jim from Huckleberry Finn weren't 
slaves as long as they loved their masters? Was Kreacher a slave 
until he decided he was happy with Harry as his master (Harry gave 
him orders even when Kreacher decidedly didn't want to be owned by 
him) because he (Kreacher) approves in general of the status House 
Elves have now? To me that just goes back to why it sucks being a 
slave. And I think that's the reason Harry won't be burying Kreacher 
under a headstone that says FREE ELF. It seems like that argument 
applies just as easily to human slaves too--if your slaves think 
their proper place is as slaves and are afraid of being cast out.

 
> > 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. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> How canon did not prove that it is not possible to free house elves 
> if they do not want to be free?

Magpie:
Without much effort made at freeing house elves I don't see why I'd 
think it was proved impossible. Though as I said I think canon gives 
us plenty of reason to dismiss the idea as unrealistic and so embrace 
the situation they have now.

The idea that this also makes them not slaves makes it for me more 
disturbing, giving the Wizards even more power. Since I don't see 
Elves being happy (sometimes) in their situation as making them any 
less slaves, it just seems like they're living the dream where all 
the 19th century pro-slavery arguments are true and then one better. 
It used to be arguments about how slavery was good for slaves proved 
that slavery was a good thing. Now that slavery is in itself 
repulsive, it's no longer slavery. Slaveowners don't even have to be 
bothered by the word. 

So to me it seems like everything in the book says that the goal is 
to have elves enslaved by good masters, with Harry being an example 
of a good master--an exceptionally good master since he has once 
freed a slave who wanted it. If I were living in a society with 
slaves I think I'd see instructions on how to be a good master in the 
series, not the message that slavery was wrong.

-m