House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 180859

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. 


SSSusan:
Sorry.  But to me, once a choice has been made to DECLINE an offer of 
FULL freedom, I think I'm with Alla -- a different word needs to 
exist to describe that state.  It's not slavery and ownership in my 
book if the person is electing to stay.  

Presumably, if I as a witch offer Snorty Elf her freedom and she 
says, "No, I don't want to be free," and I say, "Are you sure? Don't 
you want to walk out and be on your own, free to do as you please, to 
earn money, work for whomever you want?" and Snorty says, "No, I 
don't, I want to stay here and work for you," then to me, something 
FUNDAMENTAL changed in the relationship.  

And **if** Snorty were to come to me in the future and say, "You 
know?  I've been thinking about that offer and I think I'd like to 
take you up on it... I'll be leaving now," then I would honor that 
because, once freedom had been offered up (even if refused), I, 
as "master," would no longer see myself as OWNING Snorty.  Rather, I 
would see that something changed in our relationship when I willingly 
offered her that freedom.

Do with that what you will, but it's my take.



> > 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? 

SSSusan:
A slave choosing not to run away is not the same thing as turning 
down an offer of legal freedom.  The slave owner is not offering 
freedom to his property in the former; rather, the slave would be 
electing to do something not only extremely risky but also ILLEGAL in 
taking that chance.  OTOH a house elf choosing to say "no" to an 
offer of freedom from his owner is a wholly different prospect.  The 
legal owner offers freedom -- a risk-free and LEGAL prospect.  When 
the elf says "no," then again, to me, that changes what that 
relationship is between them.

I'm not going to say anybody else needs to see it the way I do, but 
I'm saying this is how I see it, and perhaps that's part of why we 
don't seem to be getting anywhere in finding common ground or 
convincing one another.  

Siriusly Snapey Susan