House elves WAS: realistic resolutions

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 181019

> >>Betsy:
> > And I do suspect JKR expected her audience to have an immediate 
> > response to the use of the word "slave".
> > <snip>

> >>Carol:
> Then how do you account for the happy House-Elves of Hogwarts?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
At the time I equated them with the happy slaves of well run homes in 
the South.

> >>Carol:
> We're talking about House-Elf ownership, which may or may not      
> involve abuse.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yes we are.  Just as not every black slave was abused, not every 
house-elf is abused.  But it's still slavery no matter how thick the 
velvet glove.

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> Could it be that both slavery and freedom are human concepts, which 
> are essentially meaningless to magical creatures whose nature and   
> psychology compel them to serve Wizards?

Betsy Hp:
Obviously not, as Dobby the house-elf used them.

> >>Carol:
> They reject abuse, certainly. But they don't want freedom.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Without freedom, house-elves cannot reject abuse.  They can only 
endure.  And Kreacher seemed quite desperate for freedom when he was 
screaming "I won't, I won't" on Harry's carpet.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > He was also forced to inform on (heh) the scion of a family he
> > adored. <snip>

> >>Carol:
> Ah. "Inform on" used correctly. :-) 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I've never used it incorrectly.  Again, beauty of the English 
language.  (Seriously, do some research, because it's a much richer 
phrase than you're giving it credit for.)

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> BTW, human beings are forced to perform duties we don't want to
> perform all the time, paying income tax or bills or performing
> distasteful tasks at work, for example. And the penalty is being
> arrested or having the water turned off or being "freed," erm,     
> fired. That doesn't make us slaves.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Of course it doesn't.  Being owned makes you a slave.  Like with the 
house-elves owned by wizards.

> >>Carol:
> We can argue whether House-Elf ownership is mutually beneficial    
> when the owner's powers aren't abused and the House-Elf is serving 
> a master he respects, if you like.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'd agree with that.  Giving the house-elf freedom to choose who she 
wishes to serve would go a long way towards that.  Because from what 
we've seen, house-elves are not always owned by those they respect.  
And there's nothing they can do about it.  (The downside to being a 
slave.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Unless, are you saying Winky is no longer a house-elf?  Dobby died
> > as something other than a house-elf?  If a house-elf is no longer
> > owned does he or she cease to be?

> >>Carol:
> Of course I'm not saying that. Winky wants to be owned and Dobby not
> only wants to serve Wizards but continues to do so. That's their
> nature. They remain House-Elves to the end.

Betsy Hp:
And yet, both of them were free.  And Winky refused to serve.  So, as 
per your argument, neither of them were house-elves.  I'd say saying 
a house-elf *must* be a slave, *must* be owned isn't very well backed 
by canon.

> >>Betsy:
> > Kreacher is Harry's property and Harry is cool with that.  So    
> > he's Harry the slave-owning hero.  

> >>Carol:
> He's Harry the House-Elf owning hero. Alliterates better, even if it
> is a bit of a mouthful.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Also, lacks accuracy. :)  Harry owns Kreacher.  A house-elf is still 
a house-elf when not owned.  So an owned house-elf is a slave.  So 
Harry is a slave-owner.  Again, the velvet glove, the candy coating, 
only covers the ugliness underneath.  Kreacher is Harry's property. 

> >>Carol, wondering whether Betsy et al. think that Sam was Frodo's 
> slave in LOTR

Betsy Hp:
I do actually see a difference between being a servant and being a 
slave (having been a servant a time or two myself, but never a 
slave). Sam was able to say "no".  Several times in fact.  A house-
elf would have left Frodo to journey on alone when Frodo gave the 
order.  The house-elf would have had no choice.  And Frodo would have 
died and the journey would have failed.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181000
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Worms *always* turn. (The current Battlestar Galactica
> > deals with exactly this issue.) It's why, despite Harry's         
> > assurance that all is well, I expect the WW will rupture into    
> > destructive violence sooner rather than later.

> >>Pippin:
> If the purpose of the house-elf plot arc is to inform us about
> the difference between naive do-goodery and enlightened
> activism, it can end once our heroes understand.

Betsy Hp:
But, we never see any of our heroes engage in enlightened activism.  
So I'd say either the arc failed, or it wasn't there in the first 
place.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> But since Harry and Hermione know as well as anyone that worms     
> always turn, why assume that they aren't doing their best to treat 
> house-elves as house-elves want to be treated?

Betsy Hp:
I've never seen Harry or Hermione experience a worm turning.  Those 
they stomp on either stay down or die.  And they've never themselves 
been worms.  So actually, they're perfect examples of those who'd be 
most surprised by a rebellion, IMO.  I think as long as the good 
treatment of house-elves benefits them, they'll treat house-elves 
well.  But as we've seen, if Harry needs to abuse his house-elf, 
he'll do it.  And Hermione will (maybe) shake her head.

> >>Pippin:
> That all is well with the WW, as with the Hogwarts Express, not    
> because it has arrived at its destination but because reasonable   
> progress is being made?

Betsy Hp:
I've seen nothing to suggest progress is why.  Why assume something 
of which we've seen no sign? I honestly don't think we're supposed to 
see an issue with house-elf slavery.  Dobby's life was ultimately 
useless (he was just a mad fool) and Harry betrayed him in the end.

Betsy Hp