House elves (WAS: realistic resolutions)

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 180872

>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180799
> > Mike:
> > <snip>
> > They are not human slaves, yet if you define them in terms 
> > of your own culture, what do you have to equate them to 
> > other than human slaves?

> a_svirn:
> I don't see why I should equate them to anything. 

Mike:
Then what's the problem? People own horses, leader dogs, guard dogs, 
hunting dogs, dairy cows, laying chickens, etc. All of which are 
living beings that are owned by human masters and are forced to do 
their bidding. If you don't equate house elf slavery to human 
slavery, then why is owning them any different than owning the 
aforementioned list of beings?


> a_svirn:
> What do you equate wizards to? 

Mike:
Us, humans, people. How do you apply our cultural norms to the WW and 
not think of wizards as the humans they obviously are? Isn't that 
what we were talking about here, cultural, societal acceptability?


> a_svirn:
> What do you equate bankers who have different notions of property 
> and ownership than humans to? 

Mike:
Nothing, just as I don't equate the house elf condition to real world 
human slavery. And that after all is my point. There is nothing to 
equate goblins, werewolves, centaurs, or house elves to in the RW. So 
when you ask me to apply our cultaural norms to the WW, for the 
treatment of these creatures, I say it's not that straight forward.


> a_svirn:
> House-elves' slavery might be a weird thing to
> account for, but it is still slavery.

Mike:
Right, but it's not the same as human slavery and therefore not the 
same thing for the wizards that own them. There is no human slavery 
in the WW. Likewise, as Goddlefrood pointed out, there is no house 
elf slave trade in the WW. 

I'm sorry, but it seems to me to be a disconnect to say you don't 
equate house elf slavery to human slavery but it's bad for wizards to 
participate in house elf slavery. Why? If it's not human slavery 
where's the conflict in morality? Unless you're going to tell me you 
would be opposed to humans owning ANY animals, how can you say it's 
abominable for humans to own these non-human animals? 



>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180831
> Magpie:
> <snip>
> 
> 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.

Mike:
Neither do I. I've said, Alla and Carol have both said, that as pure 
definition slavery works just fine. As a moral stance, that is, house 
elf slavery is wrong, full stop, is where our paths diverge.

You've always been a pretty objective reader of canon, Magpie, where 
do you think the house elf sub-plot went? I read Hermione indignant 
about the slavery existing. She tries to start SPEW, seemingly with 
the freedom of the house elves in mind. But the house elves make it 
clear that they don't want her help, they don't want to be free. 

Then Hermione shifts to concern over treatment of the elves. Here 
there is no rebuff from the elves. (Admittedly, there doesn't seem to 
be time for it in the story. But I would disagree if someone said 
canon indicated that elves would be opposed to better conditions.) 
Canon seems to tell me that house elves don't want to be free and to 
impose freedom would be moralistic imperialism. If there was an 
object lesson for the Trio, that was it. This is a different world 
than the one Hermione and Harry came from. They must accept and 
acknowledge different norms when dealing with the various magical 
creatures in this world.

That's the way canon reads to me. Mind you, I'm not saying you should 
agree with that message. Just that that is the object lesson canon 
puts out there.


> Magpie:
> <snip>
> 
> 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.

Mike:
A quick point on this society. When I'm talking about how wizards 
treat other species and what is their norm, I'm talking in terms of 
the average run of the mill wizard, like Arthur and Molly. I'm not 
going to explain or justify what Umbridge and her ilk do in that 
corrupt Ministry with their ridiculous laws. 

When it comes to whether wizards accept other species' cultures (btw, 
I don't consider werewolves a different species), I look for that 
average wizard and what they do. As far as I can tell, wizards accept 
centaurs, merpeople, and house elves cultures as they are. The only 
exception (which is a law from the Ministry) is goblins wanting to 
have wands. Combining that with the goblin's right of ownership 
position and goblins seem to be saying, "What we make is ours and 
what you make should be ours too." It's no wonder wizards couldn't 
abide that philosophy. But they seem to have come to a compromise to 
co-exist.

So, I don't think it's accurate to say wizards only abide other 
creatures cultures if they are favorable to wizards.

Mike