House elves WAS: realistic resolutions

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180956

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180936
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Mike:
> But that is the difference, Magpie. It's fantasy slavery, house elf 
> slavery, not real world human slavery. That's why I'm not willing 
to 
> attach real world values to it, nor condemn the wizard slave owners 
> like I would real world slave owners. 

a_svirn:
And what if it is? Goblins with their contempt for private property 
are nothing like real life bankers either. Still we recognise them as 
bankers. Elves aren't human, but they are still slaves. They fact 
that they seem to have a powerful urge to serve is no excuse for 
putting them under legal and magical constraints. Or, rather, it is 
exactly what it is – an excuse, a justification for slavery. 

> Mike:
It doesn't work *exactly* the 
> same, humans weren't enchanted to be slaves, slave humans were 
sold, 
> bought, traded, not bound magically to a family/homestead, human 
> slaves didn't have magic that they couldn't use without their 
> master's permission, and the vast, overwhelming majority of human 
> slaves would not have eschewed freedom because it was an insult to 
> their being.
> 
> My way of reading the house elves is that they are magical 
creatures 
> with this imperative to serve humans and human households. NOT that 
> they were compelled to do so by humans, manufactured by humans, or 
> otherwise forced to be slaves by humans. 

a_svirn:
We *know* that they are constrained by humans. It is a fact of canon. 
Kreacher was constrained by law and by magic to be a slave of someone 
he doesn't want to serve. So was Dobby. Winky was likewise 
constrained, only she didn't mind the fact because she loved her 
owners. 

> > a_svirn:
> > How about OotP? Kreacher's subplot was crucial there, and
> > Kreacher did not want to be owned by his master, he even
> > rebelled against him.
> 
> Mike:
> It's never been who the master is for me. Kreacher didn't want 
> freedom, he wanted a different master. But the key here is that he 
> never considered himself NOT to be a slave. Heck, even the freed 
> Dobby says he can chose who to serve now. But notice he didn't say 
> he could chose NOT to serve, just who. The way I read that is that 
> elves have always served, from the beginning of their time. YMMV.
> 
> 
a_svirn:
It isn't about who the master is for me either. It is about the 
freedom of choice. And withholding this freedom is what slavery is 
about. You keep saying that elves are slaves because they want to 
serve, as if it were some sort of an axiom, but in fact, they are 
slaves because they are OWNED. If Kreacher is free choose whom to 
serve he is no longer owned, ergo he's no longer a slave.   He is 
free-e. And that's precisely what he wanted in OotP and HBP, even if 
he didn't say it in so many words. 

a_svirn