House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 180871

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.

Magpie:
> The only fundamental change is the way you say you see yourself. 
> Nothing has changed in Snorty's situation until her freedom is 
> actually granted for real. A word does not exist for owning someone 
> legally and literally but not "seeing yourself" as owning them. 

SSSusan:
That was precisely my point.  A word *doesn't* exist, but because the 
situation in the WW is different in at least one component from the 
RW, then it would be nice if a different term *did* exist.  That's 
what I said, above.

I see your point that nothing about an offer of freedom and a decline 
of that offer would probably change the relationship in the eyes of 
the WW law... unless that offer were somehow public and "recorded" 
(and how likely is that?).  But I still do not see how something 
FUNDAMENTAL about that particular relationship isn't different than 
human slave and owner in the RW.  

And it feels like this didn't quite address that difference in the 
other issue I raised in my last post.  You compared a slave electing 
not to attempt to run away or rebel to the house elves that elected 
not to choose freedom when offered it.  I attempted to point out that 
the two are not equal situations, since taking the first action (a 
slave running away) is a risky venture because it isn't legal, 
whereas taking the second action (an elf accepting freedom) is a 
fully legal move.  I just think this speaks to their being a 
different level of *something* going on here with elves, when 
compared to human slavery in the RW.  And that difference is what 
makes me wish there *were* a different word or term.  JKR didn't give 
it to us, so we're probably stuck arguing, at least at some level, 
semantics.

If an owner wants to grant an elf freedom and the elf does not want 
it, then the owner is screwed.  If he keeps the elf, he's allegedly 
buying into slavery and thinking only of wizarding (human) needs.  If 
he frees the elf anyway, he is a good guy for not perpetuating 
slavery BUT simultaneously potentially dooms the elf to the kind of 
life Winky faced.  I struggle to see why keeping the elf when s/he 
wants that is necessarily considering only WIZARDING needs.  Why is 
there the assumption that the wizard buys into the whole mentality to 
such a degree that he only cares, really, down deep, about himself? 

Though I will say that this --

> If  you had said, "Sure Snorty, you can still stay here and work 
> for me. But you will work for me as a Free Elf" then her status 
> would have changed. 

-- would solve a lot, wouldn't it??  If Harry in particular or 
wizards in general would take that step of insisting that the house 
elf change the name  and definition of his/her position, even if s/he 
stuck around and served the wizard anyway, it would solve the legal 
dilemma you describe here:

Magpie:
> Illusionary freedom that's dependent on how the person with the 
> real power feels is worthless--Snorty changing her mind only works 
> if you don't change your mind--maybe you don't think you would 
> change your mind and so keep her enslaved, but you could and you 
> might, especially if what she wanted to do conflicted with your 
> interests, as it did for Harry and Dumbledore. (Or you might die 
> and she'd find herself inherited as property.) A person needs their 
> own legal rights to be protected. You can't depend on the person 
> who has the rights to look out for you.


SSSusan:
I still feel there *is* something different between RW human slavery 
and what we see in WW house elfhood – at least in those cases, like 
at Hogwarts, where freedom has been freely offered and declined, 
especially if the master truly *does* wish to give the freedom but 
doesn't want to turn out an elf who doesn't want to be turned out.  I 
will continue to say I sure wish JKR would have given us an alternate 
term/word/concept for this, because I think the house elf desire to 
serve and to not be freed complicates the use of "slavery" as we use 
it in the RW.

Siriusly Snapey Susan