House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 180898

 
> Betsy Hp:
> At which point, you've convinced that free person that she is not 
> free and that you are her owner.  It's just in Potterverse, it's easy 
> and legal.  (No one is hunting Harry down for kidnapping Kreacher.  
> No one hunted Sirius down for kidnapping Kreacher, come to think of 
> it.  And Kreacher was very much being held against his will at the 
> time he was owned by Sirius.)

Pippin:
We don't know whether the laws concerning house-elves have
been changed or not. Hermione expressed her intention to do some 
good in the world and to take SPEW further. She usually gets what 
she wants. <g> 

Her zinger to Scrimgeour would have no force if she didn't consider 
the ministry able to do good in the first place. Her remark has to be 
taken in the context of someone who knows that under the then 
current regime Muggleborns and allies of Dumbledore weren't 
welcome. We can safely assume that has changed.

Obviously it isn't necessary to show  the laws being changed to
convince readers that they should be changed. 

Needless to say, the  "actual" freeing of fictional house-elves in a 
fantasy universe would have no great effect on real slaves.
In fact, it might work against them. If magical heroes will always arise to 
free the victims of tyranny, us ordinary joes can let them get on with it.

I do wonder why the Order didn't send Kreacher to Hogwarts  or
let him go to Narcissa before he had a chance to learn their secrets.
But I suppose Sirius, determined to assert himself somewhere, 
refused to allow it. He would have had law and custom on his
side along with the house-elf enchantments, and as for Kreacher's 
feelings, he didn't care about them.

If Dumbledore had had the weight of  law and custom on his side, 
it would have been a lot harder for Sirius to ignore Kreacher's rights 
or the danger that mistreating him presented, even if his lack of
concern for Kreacher or the effect of the enchantments didn't
change. Laws are not just a mechanism for punishing the 
people who break them. They are also a powerful statement of society's
expectations as to how people should behave.
 
> > >>Pippin:
> > <snip>
> > I'm saying the fact that Harry still owns a slave at the end of the 
> > series doesn't indicate that he is pro-slavery or that he thinks    
> > the institution of slavery is a social good and intends it to       
> > continue. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> How is this not double-speak?  How can someone own a slave and still 
> expect us to believe he's against slavery?

Pippin:
People who are fiercely opposed to holding wild animals 
in captivity sometimes have no better choice. The animals' natural habitat
may have been destroyed, the animal may be too old or sick or weak to
survive in the wild, or it may be bonded or imprinted on  humans. 

All of that seems to apply to Kreacher, plus the added factor that
he can  express his own opinion: his highest law is to serve his 
master's bidding. (DH ch 10) How can you believe in freedom for 
house-elves and not be willing to take their wishes into account? 

Even when he was angry at Sirius, Kreacher expressed no desire to
be freed. He did not want to leave the Black family, he only wanted
his master to behave like a proper Black. Once he was convinced that 
Harry was doing what a proper Black would do, he was content. 
 
> > >>Pippin:
> > <snip>
> > Of course there were hypocritical slave-owners who wrapped          
> > themselves in the mantle of gradual abolitionism while continuing   
> > to exploit their slaves as much as possible. But I don't see this   
> > happening in the books.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Sure you do.  Harry and Hermione are perfect examples.

Pippin:
Perfect examples would have ordered the Elves to fight for Hogwarts, 
perfectly sure that it was for their own good. Unless you can show me
that Harry and Hermione knew the Elves would fight for them anyway,
canon  refutes your theory.

Pippin