House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180853

> Magpie:
> > 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. 
> 
> SSSusan:
> And what of those who WERE offered their freedom and declined?  
How 
> can they then still be considered *owned* by another and 
classified 
> as slaves?  

What about all the house elves who appeared in the 
> Gryffindor common room to clean and were confronted with clothing 
> they could have taken in order to be instantly freed, but did 
NOT?  
> They, then, have made a *choice* to serve and are no longer 
slaves.  
> IMHO, of course.

Magpie:
Of course they can still be owned and classified as slaves. This is 
partly why I started concentrating on the Wizards--because the 
tendency is to put it all on the House Elves as if they're 
controlling things, so that it only comes down to the Elf wanting to 
be owned rather than the Wizard wanting to own.

But a person can still be a slave and be owned even if I've offered 
them freedom. It's right there in the description--if they're 
declining to be set free or to not be owned then they must still be 
owned and a slave. I am still owning them. 

Iow, I don't believe you can own slaves without owning slaves, even 
though that seems to be what canon is trying to go for. Even if I 
believe myself to just be acquiescing to the Elves' wishes, I'm 
doing it by agreeing to own a slave. Just as I would be doing if I 
were acquiescing to my slave-owning father's demands to not set my 
inherited slaves free. If the Elf asks to be my slave and I agree, 
then I have agreed to have him as my slave.

The Gryffindor House Elves have chosen to be slaves--the fact that 
they want to be in that state probably has a great effect on how 
they experience their situation, but it doesn't change the set up. 
The owners still have all the power of owners.


> 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.
> 
> SSSusan:
> Again, I see a significant difference.  The human slaves were not 
> given a choice for freedom that they freely elected to disregard.  
> The house elves at Hogwarts each ELECTED to reject the offer of 
> freedom even with Dobby there as an example of a free elf.  I 
don't 
> see how, at least in the case of all those Hogwarts elves, that is 
> not a clear difference from human slavery.

Magpie:
Yes, but that doesn't make them not slaves. There were probably 
plenty of human slaves who rejected trying to run away--did that 
make them no longer slaves because they chose their slavery over 
making a break for it? Did any slaves who didn't take part in a 
rebellion become no longer slaves because they didn't fight for 
their freedom? I would not be surprised if there were human slaves 
throughout history who rejected freedom as well because slavery is 
what they knew and they feared the unknown and the insecurity of 
suddenly being free. (It certainly didn't make their masters any 
less masters--the only thing that made the master no longer a master 
was if the slave was freed.)

These things make a difference in how a person relates to being a 
slave, but it doesn't make the person not a slave. To be not slave 
they would have to not be owned and subject to the will of their 
owner. For instance, I'm sure plenty of slaves after the American 
Civil War continued to serve their masters in the same capacity as 
they did before. They did not stop being slaves because they chose 
to remain in their same position, they stopped being slaves because 
it was no longer legal for them to be owned.

Pippin:
It's not really the definition of slavery that's off here, IMO. It's 
the definition of "kind master."

Magpie:
The definition of "kind master" is a lot more changeable through 
time than the defintion of "slave" ever has. A slave is a person 
being held as chattel--and I think house elves most certainly do 
qualify as persons, they just aren't human persons. Classifying a 
character like Dobby as an animal--sub-human--to me feels 
dangerously close to the way Voldemort would see it, and it also 
dismisses any arguments about respecting House Elves' culture or 
wishes because animals don't have either, nor do they understand the 
concept of slave or free. Harry doesn't relate to any of the House 
Elves in canon as animals.

"Kind master" depends on the custom of the country and time they 
live in. The Blacks--beloved masters of Kreacher--would not be 
considered kind by Hermione's standards, but they were by Kreacher's 
and by their own. Hermione also judged Crouch as a bad master where 
Winky did not. "Kind" is subjective. "Slave" is a more solid 
description of a person's place.

House Elves love serving Wizards and choose to do it in general, but 
they're also owned by them and subject to their whims even when they 
*don't* want to serve them.

-m