House elves WAS: realistic solutions

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 180976

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/180898

> 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.

Mike:
I'm curious, do you find goblins' notion of ownership inappropriate 
for bankers? Or do you think it is their culture and, therefore, 
wizards should respect that culture, accede to their position?



> a_svirn:
> Elves aren't human, but they are still slaves. The 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.
>
> 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
<snip>
> And withholding this freedom is what slavery is about.

Mike:
Now we may be getting down to the nut of it. I've said that I think 
the elves being slaves is their natural state of being. That's the 
way I read the books. Now you seem to be saying that it's *canon* 
that they are enslaved by wizard *law*. Are you saying there is 
canon that says that house elves are slaves by virtue of legal 
constraints? Could you give me the canon that you're referencing?

If instead, it's just your way of reading the situation, like I said 
it was mine, could you include some opinion language to indicate 
such? 



> a_svirn:
> 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.

Mike:
No I don't. I say they are slaves by virtue of their organic make-up, 
that it is their nature to be slaves. They may have come to "want" to 
serve, but from time immemorial they have been *compelled* to serve 
by their very nature. If you can show me how my reading elves being 
slaves as their natural state is wrong, as I've invited above, please 
do.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180962

> SSSusan:
> <snip>
> 
> I am decidedly NOT using the arguments used in 1700-1800s America 
> *the way those arguments were used* then.  Of course those were 
> excuses, and the slaves weren't speaking for themselves.  We have
> a mixture of wizard ("master class") comments and elf comments and
> actions to go on in HP.

Mike:
Yes, thank you SSSusan. I have been trying to say in as many ways 
that I know how that I view house elf slavery significantly different 
than real world slavery. And I, like you, find it dismaying to be 
told that I'm some kind of apologist for Harry or for the WW in 
general in taking my viewpoint.


> Betsy:
> Then why are those arguing in support of house-elf slavery using
> the exact same arguments those in support of African-slavery used
> back in the day?

Mike:
First, we are NOT arguing in *support* of house elf slavery. I find 
slavery just as repulsive as you undoubtedly do. I am arguing *what* 
I read the house elf story was informing me on; respect for other 
cultures. 

Second, my argument has never been that they are "happy as slaves" 
for not changing it. In fact, I would be happy if they could change 
it, I don't know that that is possible. I don't know that house elves 
can be anything other than slaves and *exist*.

Third, my argument was that they are not humans, but that you have to 
equate them to humans to equate their slavery to human slavery. That 
was the fallicy I was trying to point out when I was saying that they 
are NOT animals like RW dogs. If you are going to apply RW values to 
this situation, you would have to think of them as dogs if you are 
telling me you are not equating their state to human slavery. But I 
don't believe you think of elves as dogs, I believe you think of them 
as humans when you apply RW values to their situation.

Finally, I don't *have* to equate this to human slavery when I find 
that this is different kind of slavery. And just because I purport to 
understand the hows and whys of this fantasy world, doesn't mean I 
approve of it in a real world capacity.



> Carol:
> The thing is, we don't *know* that House-Elves' nature is
> "culturally induced." (Isn't that a contradiction in terms)

> SSSusan:
> I agree.  It's inconclusive from canon, though we also have people 
> *saying* it's their "nature."  True, it's wizards like Ron who say 
> this, but it's not like the Weasleys had a house elf that they'd 
> spent decades abusing and needed to have an excuse for saying it. 
> <veg>  Is there a reason why what we see and hear from the elves, 
> coupled with comments from wizards, can't indicate the possibility 
> that their alleged nature is their nature?  

Mike:
:Raises hand: That's me, I read house elf slavery as their nature. I 
also agree that if we had only the wizards words on the situation, we 
could easily put that down to bias. But we have the words of the 
elves themselves. Hermione takes the approach that they don't know 
any better. Canon told me that they do, and that they rejected 
Hermione's approach. Why they reject it is the debate. Is it out of 
respect for wizard law (and wizard placed enchantments?) that compels 
them, or is it in their very nature to be slaves and they *can't* 
reject their nature?



> > Betsy:
> > Part of the charm of the series was supposed to be the
> > connection to the RW I'd thought.
> 
> SSSusan:
> For some, I'm sure that's true... but there has never been
> agreement amongst HpfGUers over how much that connection "should"
> matter, nor the degree to which different fans focused on that.
> Heh, for me, I thought part of the charm of a fantasy series like
> HP was the escape it provided from the RW.

zgirnius:
I do read a lot of these genres. What you say is true, but it does
not have to inform on RW slavery in the particular way you insist it
does/ought to/must. It could also be in there on the RL need to
understand other cultures before messing with them, as Hermione in
GoF did not.

Mike:
My point exactly, zgirnius! That's the message I took from the house 
elf conditon. I made the perhaps irrational assumption that the 
author was not trying to tell me she thought slavery was OK. 

Yes also to SSSusan. I didn't read these books to be tied to the RL. 
Part of the attraction was JKR's ability to transport me to her world 
of magic and magical creatures. Yes, I reacted to the story as a 
human being would, I like to think of myself as human <wink>. But I 
tried to allow JKR to tell me the way things were in her world to get 
the most enjoyment out of the series.



> Siriusly Snapey Susan,
> who also appreciated Mike's example of the moving staircases 
> vs. "stairs." :)

Mike, who thanks SSSusan for her explanation of why the search for a 
new term :)