House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 180939

> 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. 

Alla:

To me they did say more than that, it just seems that the 
differences that were pointed out are not enough, well that's fine 
too. It just for me the differences did not dissappear because of 
that.

I am not inclined to debate whether elves like it enough to be 
difference or not, but Here is one IMO huge difference that 
Goddlefrood pointed out - real life slaves are traded, elves are 
not. So here is a distinction between RL slavery right there, 
staring at us. You will say it is not enough? Okay, but to me it 
just adds to the idea that while it may LOOK like slavery, I wish 
there was a different word.

Magpie:
> Sorry, I don't mean to claim to know someone's innermost thoughts 
> and motives as to why they want a different word.

Alla:

Good.

Magpie:
 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.

Alla:

So, the fact that they cannot be traded does not count as a 
difference either?

Magpie:
 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.

Alla:

I would even take a word slavery with SOME sort of qualifier, that 
this is not a human 
slavery disguised as something else.  That there is SOMETHING 
different about it, that there is a different world, different 
values and different creatures involved, NOT an Aslan thing going on.

Magpie:
<SNIP> 
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.
<SNIP>


Alla:

So, what about hobbs? ( spelling?) The creatures that Goddlefrood 
mentioned before as well? Would you call them slaves? because they 
seem to me to not being able to leave their locations as well?

So, here we have ( if I understood about them correctly) creatures 
that cannot leave their locations whatsoever. Looks to me like they 
were an inspirations for house elves together with brownies. 
Brownies can leave but like to serve, those creatures seem to not be 
able to leave even ( I never heard of them before, contrary to 
brownies).

Are they slaves to you? I see a folklor creatures that have very 
little to do with slaves.


And about Hermione calling them slaves, isn't it the whole point, I 
thought, to show that she was not correct?