House-Elves yet again

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 181068

> > Carol: 
> > 7) "Freedom," at least in the books, is accomplished through
> clothes, not legislation.
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > Yes. It is slavery that is accomplished through legislation. 
> 
> Carol:
> Um, sorry. I don't know what you mean. House-Elves are recognized as
> property (Kreacher can be inherited along with the house) but that
> seems to be merely recognizing the (natural or at least pre-
existing)
> state of affairs. There's no law on the books that we know of 
stating
> that all House-Elves will be slaves or even that all House-Elves 
must
> belong to a Wizard. 

a_svirn:
Oh yes, we do. Kreacher was inherited legally, wasn't he? Of course 
we don't know exactly what sorts of laws regulate wizarding 
inheritance, we are not treated to the equity versus common law legal 
rigmarole, thank Merlin, but we know the essentials. Elves are 
legally the wizading property, to be used, abused and give away at 
will. We don't know whether devolution of property is the only way of 
giving them away, but I don't see why they cannot be traded. There is 
nothing in canon to contradict it. So yes, there are laws in the WW 
stating that elves are wizarding property. No way round that one. 

> Carol:
Somehow, in the distant past, House-Elves started
> serving Wizards, whether voluntarily or otherwise, and somehow they
> became magically associated with those old families and houses,

a_svirn:
We know how. They were enslaved. That's how it is called in canon. By 
an elf. 

> Carol:
 so
> that they were to all intents and purposes part of the house. The 
only
> way to get rid of them was to give them clothes. 

a_svirn:
In a way they are of course. I suppose you can say that slaves to all 
intents and purposes are a part of plantations. As for clothes, it is 
the way to get rid of them, as you very rightly said, but not to 
liberate them. You'd need to change both the laws and the attitude of 
wizards for elves to be really free. 

> Carol:
(Of course, they
> could be ordered to accompany a family member or go elsewhere, for
> example, to Hogwarts, but that doesn't make them any less associated
> with the family home. I'm sure that Kreacher sees 12 GP as his home;

a_svirn:
The beauty of English language as Betsy said, as well as any other 
language, is that words have so many meaning and connotations. 
Kreacher is associated with his family home? Hard to argue with that. 
But his association meant nothing for Harry when he sent him to 
Hogwarts. Kreacher regarded No.12 as his home and the Blacks as his 
family, and we saw how much his associations and personal allegiances 
helped him to withstand the power of the hateful bond. It didn't 
help. He is not bound to the house; he is not bound to the family. He 
is bound to the wizard that owns him. 

> Carol:
> Anyway, I've strayed as usual from my point, which is that the law
> recognizes House-Elves as property, but I doubt that they became
> property ("slaves," to use your word) through legislation. 

a_svirn:
Very probably they first become the property of wizards de facto, and 
then the situation was legitimised. It has been in fact the case with 
many a law. I don't see how it makes the situation any more 
palatable. 

> Carol:
There's
> some sort of enchantment that can only be undone by giving a House-
Elf
> clothes, and it seems to be part of the nature of House-Elves. 

a_svirn:
No, this particular enchantment does not seem to be a part of their 
nature to me. It involves cultural artefacts. Moreover, it involves 
*wizarding* cultural artefacts. Cultural artefacts are not and cannot 
be in any way a part of nature. Much less wizarding cultural 
artefacts can be a part of elvish nature. It is obviously an 
enchantment that was put on elves by wizards. 


> > Carol earlier: 
> > Nevertheless, his "freedom"is not all that wonderful, as it 
amounts
> to homelessness and unemployment for a year, and if it weren't for
> Dumbledore, both he and Winky would have remained outcasts (or 
starved
> to death). No one wants a disgraced House-Elf, especially one who
> "wants paying."
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > And what exactly it tells us? That Dobby and Winky are natural  
slaves? 
> 
> Carol:
> Did I say that?
> What I'm saying, dear a_svirn, is that "freedom" for House-Elves, at
> least in the unenlightened WW we see in the books, is not a 
desirable
> state. 

a_svirn:
It is not, however, what follows from your example. What follows from 
your example is that even when they do desire freedom, like Dobby, 
wizards make it impossible for them to enjoy it. 

> Carol:
They can't just start up a business like Wizards. They have to
> look for domestic work *for* Wizards because that is what House-
Elves
> do and all that they do and what they want to do. They have no
> alternative except to remain homeless wanderers and perhaps starve.
> 
> I am saying that they naturally *serve* Wizards, but not that they 
are
> natural slaves. That's your word, remember? I almost feel that 
you're
> perversely misunderstanding my argument and twisting my words.

a_svirn:
There's no need to throw accusations or spin conspiracy theories. I 
quite agree with you that they naturally want to serve. What I don't 
understand is how it is translated into wanting to be owned. Much 
less wanting to be owned against their will. I've been asking this 
very question many a time and yet to receive an answer. I almost feel 
that you purposefully ignore it. 


> a_svirn:
> And the only wizard that has the required quality is Dumbledore. 
Well
> it's just too bad, isn't it? Not all is well in the WW after all,
> something is definitely rotten. 
> 
> Carol:
> And yet if their masters had treated them fairly and not imposed
> "freedom" in the one case and abuse in the other, they would not 
have
> been in that position. *If* House-Elf servitude is "natural" in the
> sense of having been established by some enchantment that can only 
be
> undone by giving them clothes

a_svirn:
For the life of me I cannot understand how all this can 
mean "natural" (and yes, I do signal unusual usage).


> Carol eralier:
> > 8) The enchantment that binds a House-Elf to serve a particular
> family can be broken by giving the House-Elf clothes, but the
> enchantment that forces a House-Elf to punish himself if he disobeys
> his master (or even his paid employer, as we see with Dobby and
> Umbridge, remains in place). They are, it seems, two separate
> enchantments, and it's the second, the self-punishment enchantment,
> that seems more horrific to Hermione, our spokeswoman for the Elf 
cause.
> > 
> > a_svirn: 
> > Yes indeed, it seemed to discompose Hermione. Elves themselves, 
> however, are not fussed about it. They want to serve the masters of 
> their choice – and that's the really big issue with them – but as 
for
> self-punishment, they don't complain about it. Well, Dobby 
mentioned 
> it, but only as a minor issue. Kreacher certainly saw nothing
> whatsoever wrong with it. 
> > 
> >Carol:
> A "minor issue" that they hit themselves on the head with lamps and
> bottles? Okay, Now I see that we're poles apart. What I see as
> horrific, you consider minor. 

a_svirn:
I see it as horrific too. You, however, were the one, who argued in 
favour of listening to what is important to elves and against 
imposing our human values on them. They are not particularly unhappy 
about self-punishment. They are unhappy about being bound against 
their will. Let's listen to elves, shall we? 

> Carol:
> As for the Elves being "fussed" about serving the masters of their
> choice, they still want to serve, and are not at all "fussed" about
> being owned. 

a_svirn:
Yes, but I was talking about elves serving masters who are 
emphatically not their choice. So you are answering the question I 
didn't ask. 

> > Carol:
> > So, supposing that the self-punishment enchantment, which no one 
on
> this list or in the books sees as a good thing, is lifted, with
> penalties instituted for abusing a House-Elf. Is that sufficient? (I
> > think it is,) 
> > <snip>
> > More important, how are the Elves supposed to be "freed" if the 
only
> way to do it is by giving them all clothes? (Legislation can't undo 
an
> enchantment.)
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > I don't understand why you think that one of these two separate 
> > enchantments can be lifted while the other cannot. <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. Let me say again:
> Legislation cannot break either enchantment. You can't undo magic 
with
> a law. You can make a spell, such Sectumsempra, illegal, but you 
can't
> undo it with a law. You need Snape's elaborate countercurse.

a_svirn:
Yes, but if Harry knows that he faces Azkaban if he uses it he'll 
think twice before do something like that. 

> Carol: 
> Making House-Elf ownership illegal is not going to undo the
> enchantment that binds them to a particular house or family. Only 
the
> counterenchantment, giving them clothes, can do that. And requiring
> all House-Elf owners to give their Elves clothes would, IMO, result 
in
> great psychological harm to the Elves, 

a_svirn:
Of course, it would. Giving cloths is not a counterenchantment, it is 
the way of sacking the elf. The enchantment must be lifted 
altogether. 

> Carol: 
and in homelessness and
> joblessness if they were forced to seek new owners. 

a_svirn:
Not, if there were more wizards of good will.

> Carol: 
You said yourself
> that the WW is no fit place for unemployed House-Elves. Legislation 
to
> compel them to treat their Elves compassionately would be a much
> better solurion.

a_svirn:
No it wouldn't. For one thing it is impossible to implement, since 
bound elves cannot inform on their masters, for another a free person 
is a better solution than a person owned. Better for both parties. 

> Carol: 
> The other enchantment, the one forcing House-Elves to punish
> themselves, must also have a countercurse or countercharm of some
> sort. We just don't know what it is. It can't be undone by giving
> clothes, as we see with Dobby, nor can it be undone by legislation.

a_svirn:
We don't even know that it is an enchantment. It might be part of 
their nature, might it not? Of course I am all for countering it if 
it's possible. 

 
> > a_svirn:
> > I am continually puzzled by that persistent reference to 
businessmen 
> > and professors. Are these two categories of people the only ones 
who 
> > have freedom of choice? 
> 
> Carol:
> Of course not. I am simply citing two typical Wizarding career
> choices, others being MoM employees and Healers at St. Mungos, in
> which it appears that House-Elves, not being human, have no interest
> (and for which, possibly, they're not suited by nature). I am 
talking
> about choices that Wizards make that House-Elves either cannot or
> simply do not make. Make sense now?

a_svirn:
No, actually. I mean of course, they wouldn't want to make the same 
career choices as wizards, not being wizards themselves. I just don't 
see what it has to do with anything. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> And why the quotation mark? Are you signaling unusual usage? 
> 
> Carol:
> Yes, as a matter of fact. "Freedom of choice" is not normally used 
to
> mean a choice of masters or even a choice of professions. If you 
look
> up the phrase on Google, I suspect it will lead you to websites
> supporting a woman's right to abortion.
> 
> Carol, who is much more interested in examining the WW as it is
> depicted than in imposing her personal views of how it ought to be 
onto it
>
a_svirn:
Well, there is no problem with women rights in the WW that I know of. 
There is, however a problem with elvish rights, so I really don't 
understand what it is so unusual in my usage of the phrase. 

a_svirn.