House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180936

> > Magpie:
> > It seems to me more like slave is the first thing we think of 
> because 
> > that's what it is, but since Harry's doing it and slavery is 
kind of 
> > icky-sounding we've got reason to try to find some other word to 
> use. 
> ><SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, it is more like some of us (myself, since I cannot speak for 
> aybody else) do not equate it with real world slavery no matter 
who is 
> doing it Harry or anybody else.

Magpie:
You're right it's not real world slavery--it's fantasy slavery where 
the slave is magically compelled to obey you, for one thing. But I 
haven't seen anybody show that it's actually different than slavery 
in the way it works. What they've said is that it "feels different" 
if the slave wants to serve--and that's perfectly true for human 
slaves as well. 

Sorry, I don't mean to claim to know someone's innermost thoughts 
and motives as to why they want a different word. It's just that I 
don't see how the arguments that it's truly different than slavery 
(be it slavery by Romans, Americans or Martians) hold up when 
describing house elves. Since it's the word in the book (as is its 
opposite: Free) and nobody misunderstands when it's used here or 
there it seems like there must be some reason that this word is a 
problem in itself--especially if we can honestly suggest 
using "vassal" instead. Why not just say, as I think people have for 
years, "house-elf slavery?" That identifies that we're not talking 
about slaves in the human population.

Supposedly what makes it different is that the Elves' will is always 
completely in line with serving a master--and in the case of 
somebody like Harry he's only kept from freeing the slave because 
the slave doesn't want it. Yet Harry orders Kreacher to do something 
against Kreacher's will, and Kreacher must obey him. Lucius gives 
Dobby an order that's against Dobby's will and Dobby must obey him. 
(Neither Harry nor Lucius allow their Elf to leave him and go to the 
person he prefers when those elves have expressed a desire to not 
serve him as master, so the elves can't leave.) But that's not 
slavery because allegedly Kreacher and Dobby really want to do those 
things? How does that work? Sure there's this general idea 
that "they want to be in this situation" but on the individual level 
we've seen it turn into plain old oppression quickly and easily. The 
institution is the same, it's only feelings that are allegedly 
different. 

Because if the situation was that the house elves seemed like slaves 
because they cooked and cleaned for people but actually were free to 
leave whenever they wanted (without needing some magical release on 
the part of the Wizard like being given clothes) and only served 
when they wanted to, then I'd be happy to not use that word. Actual 
brownies, for instance, I would not call slaves just because they 
serve people. Giving the wages offends them so they decide to leave 
on their own, it doesn't free them.

But in canon it seems in every case like the cultural differences at 
play here have nothing to do with making it not slavery--nobody 
within the culture even argues such a thing that I remember. Here's 
Ron the Pureblood with Hermione in GoF:

"You know, house-elves get a *very* raw deal!" said Hermione 
indignantly. "It's slavery, that's what it is! That Mr Crouch made 
[Winky] go up to the top of the stadium, and she was terrified, and 
he's got her bewitched so she can't even run when they start 
trampling tents! Why doesn't anyone *do* something about it?"

"Well, the elves are happy, aren't they?" Ron said. "You heard old 
Winky back at the match...'House-elves is not supposed to have 
fun"...that's what she likes, being bossed around."

Now, Hermione happens to be wrong about what Crouch has done to 
Winky here. He hasn't bewitched Winky not to be able to run--and 
Harry was wrong in thinking her being unable to run was because she 
didn't ask permission to leave. However, this is a mistake about 
things Crouch has done, not Crouch's power. He could very easily 
have ordered her not to be able to leave. 

And what's the reaction of Ron, the Pureblood? He gives the exact 
same response argued here: They're happy. They like being bossed 
around. He's not challenging that it is slavery, he's saying that 
for elves, that's what they want. They don't have the same problems 
living under that system that Hermione would. (And Ron only has a 
Wizard's understanding of the word.)

The differences lie in how the enslavement is enforced and how it's 
viewed imo. The institution fits all the requirements for regular 
slavery only with a magical component, and that's considered 
mutually beneficial rather than a bad thing. It's culturally 
approved slavery. You can fully support the system and think it's 
the most responsible and compassionate thing for house elves while 
still thinking it's slavery.

-m