|
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » House Elves and Human Rights
| House Elves and Human Rights [message #302680] |
Tue, 18 July 2006 14:33 |
|
What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302697 ] |
Tue, 18 July 2006 21:16 |
|
In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>
>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>
>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>
>
IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way Mitchell
treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other times she
treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those connected with
it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Like the slaves characterized in Gone with the Wind, house elves are depicted as
rather simple-minded children. Though all are childish, they come in two and
only two varieties - good and bad. House Elves are part of a world - the
wizarding world - that is in a civil war and their treatment exemplifies the
attitudes of one side of the warring parties but also is a part of that world's
grandeur. Or, like slavery characterized in UTC, the institution itself is an
evil and those who own elves are often undone by those very elves (Malfoy,
Sirius).
--
Joe
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302727 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 05:33 |
|
On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
wrote:
>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>>
>>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>>
>>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
>>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>>
>>
>IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way Mitchell
>treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other times she
>treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those connected with
>it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Yes, she IS inconsistent.
But I suspect that this is what she's probably trying to say:
1. Wizards have mistreated house-elves (both as abusive masters and
by putting additional spells on them to make them more indentured).
but...
2. House-elves are, by nature, creatures who love to serve. They
would be unhappy if they couldn't serve. Therefore, Hermione's efforts
to "free" them are laughable, because the elevs don't want to be
freed. They just want to be treated decently while they serve.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302737 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 07:35 |
|
"Brian Green" <brian.green [at] tiscali.com> wrote in message
news:e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
> What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>
> The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and
> should not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such
> views appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this
> theme?
I got the impression that she was trying to do two things;
First, show how enslaving or treating with indifference/neglect an
intelligent creature can come back and bite you in the a**. Examples are
Lucius Malfoy/Dobby and Sirius/Kreacher. This kind of makes a silent
statement, making one think of the "Do unto others" statement in life or
"you can get the true measure of a person not by how he treats his equals or
superiors, but how he treats those who are inferior."
Second, with Hermione starting SPEW, I thought JKR was going to work in a
"lets-save-the-enslaved-elves-and-give-them-rights" thing into her book.
However, it seems to have sputtered out.
Kenny
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302744 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 09:36 |
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:33:24 +0100, "Brian Green"
<brian.green [at] tiscali.com> wrote:
>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>
>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>
Convince Hermione to come up with a less repulsive name than SPEW.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302753 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 15:07 |
|
"Brian Green" <brian.green [at] tiscali.com> wrote in message
news:e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
> What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>
> The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and
> should not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such
> views appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this
> theme?
>
The House Elves are slaves because the alternative was genocide. They were
supposedly in a war against the Wizarding World and when they lost they
chose slavery over death. The question is: if they were freed, would they
revert to their old nature?
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302757 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 17:32 |
|
In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>
>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>>>
>>>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>>>
>>>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
>>>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>>>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>>>
>>>
>>IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way Mitchell
>>treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other times she
>>treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those connected with
>>it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
>
>
>Yes, she IS inconsistent.
>
>But I suspect that this is what she's probably trying to say:
>
>1. Wizards have mistreated house-elves (both as abusive masters and
>by putting additional spells on them to make them more indentured).
>
> but...
>
>2. House-elves are, by nature, creatures who love to serve. They
>would be unhappy if they couldn't serve. Therefore, Hermione's efforts
>to "free" them are laughable, because the elevs don't want to be
>freed. They just want to be treated decently while they serve.
>
>
I think this is more or less what I said.
Here's the thing. The parallels between Rowling's House Elves and the black
slaves in Gone with the Wind are too many and too obvious to ignore. GWTW is a
misty-eyed, racist depiction of slavery.
There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for and one
against. There is no middle ground, ever. Stories like GWTW are utterly
repudiated and are seen as noxious (by some). Rowling, not being an American,
didn't hold herself to the rule that stories involving slaves must be one thing
or the other wholly; she mixed both lines. To an American such as me, this
grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling is
racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which is the
epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach
so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
--
Joe
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302764 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 21:19 |
|
>
> I think this is more or less what I said.
>
> Here's the thing. The parallels between Rowling's House Elves and the black
> slaves in Gone with the Wind are too many and too obvious to ignore. GWTW is a
> misty-eyed, racist depiction of slavery.
>
> There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for and one
> against. There is no middle ground, ever. Stories like GWTW are utterly
> repudiated and are seen as noxious (by some). Rowling, not being an American,
> didn't hold herself to the rule that stories involving slaves must be one thing
> or the other wholly; she mixed both lines. To an American such as me, this
> grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling is
> racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which is the
> epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach
> so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
>
Actually my take on this is that different characters in her stories
have differing attitudes. It is not really Jo's opinion that is being
expressed, but those of her characters.
Also since the 'wizarding world' is a society apart from the 'muggle
world' it is hard for an outsider to judge what is right and wrong in a
different society.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302768 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 22:43 |
|
* Joe Curwen:
> There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for
> and one against. There is no middle ground, ever. Stories like GWTW are
> utterly repudiated and are seen as noxious (by some). Rowling, not being
> an American, didn't hold herself to the rule that stories involving slaves
> must be one thing or the other wholly; she mixed both lines. To an
> American such as me, this grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm
> not saying that Rowling is racist (except that she created a race that
> enjoys its enslavement which is the epitome of a kind of racism), but her
> wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach so far really bugs me personally,
> and I'll just leave it at that.
I don't see this as "wishy-washy" so much as exploring a moral gray area
(one that seems to make you uncomfortable). Obviously, human slaves, such
as those in /Gone with the Wind/, have no desire to be enslaved, but Rowling
has intentionally described the house-elves as not only willing, but
desirous of serving humans.
With that considered, this is something of a discussion of moral relativism:
is it right for Hermione to interfere in the elves' lives to do what /she/
thinks is right, even though the elves are offended by her actions? In the
case of house-elves, isn't it actually more humane to allow them to serve
humans, even if that may disagree with some wizards' morality?
The answers to these questions have been, and will be, debated endlessly in
this newsgroup. (They also presuppose that the house-elves truly want to
serve wizardkind, and are not just conditioned to believe that that is what
they want. On the other hand, is there functionally a difference?)
--
Benjamin D. Esham
bdesham [at] gmail.com | AIM: bdesham128 | Jabber: same as e-mail
"Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate." — Hell (via Dante)
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302771 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 23:10 |
|
Joe Curwen wrote:
> In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
> >
> >On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
> >>>
> >>>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
> >>>
> >>>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
> >>>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
> >>>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way Mitchell
> >>treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other times she
> >>treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those connected with
> >>it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
> >
> >
> >Yes, she IS inconsistent.
> >
> >But I suspect that this is what she's probably trying to say:
> >
> >1. Wizards have mistreated house-elves (both as abusive masters and
> >by putting additional spells on them to make them more indentured).
> >
> > but...
> >
> >2. House-elves are, by nature, creatures who love to serve. They
> >would be unhappy if they couldn't serve. Therefore, Hermione's efforts
> >to "free" them are laughable, because the elevs don't want to be
> >freed. They just want to be treated decently while they serve.
> >
> >
> I think this is more or less what I said.
>
> Here's the thing. The parallels between Rowling's House Elves and the black
> slaves in Gone with the Wind are too many and too obvious to ignore. GWTW is a
> misty-eyed, racist depiction of slavery.
>
> There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for and one
> against. There is no middle ground, ever. Stories like GWTW are utterly
> repudiated and are seen as noxious (by some).
GWTW is not "for" slavery, any more than IVANHOE is "for" feudalism or
serfdom. GWTW is told from the pov of a slaveowner's daughter, who
does MANY morally questionable things to survive.
>Rowling, not being an American,
> didn't hold herself to the rule that stories involving slaves must be one thing
> or the other wholly; she mixed both lines. To an American such as me, this
> grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling is
> racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which is the
> epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach
> so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
I think that Rowling's House Elves are patterned mostly after English
Domestics of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century. They have
many of the same psychological manifestations. Firstly, they could
become psychologically dependent on their employers, and you could get
servants who just devoted themselves to their "Masters" and never had
lives of their own, or were allowed to have them. Secondly, they were
very hard on fellow servants who "forgot their place" or tried to mimic
their "betters" or "got above themselves" and that sort of thing.
Thirdly, even though domestic servitude sounds utterly horrible, it was
crushing nightmare to lose your job without a reference. For females,
prostitution or the workhouse would be about the only alternatives.
Similar psychological manifestations occurred in American slavery.
There were certainly real life "Uncle Toms", or slaves devoted to their
masters personally. In HUCK FINN (whose author as raised in a
slaveowning society much like the one he depicts), you will recall that
JIM had a very House-Elvish attitude. "Yes, I know I did wrong to run
away, but . . ." In fact, the only reason that Jim dared run away in
the first place was because his mistress broke her word and tried to
sell him away from the village, which apparently was considered to be
morally wrong by most slaveowners of that class and sort (although
slavery itself was okay), and so this was Jim's justification for what
he did. It is only as he starts getting nearer to freedom that he
stops being so apologetic, and even starts plotting to steal his wife
and children, causing Huck to fret that Jim is getting uppity and it is
all his fault for encouraging him.
In these -- and other -- cases of real-life oppression, obsequiousness
and devotion to one's oppressors is partly assumed for defensive
purposes, partly a bit of Stockholme Syndrome -- a useful and necessary
adaption to the situation, but which can be thrown off by some (like
Jim) when it no longer becomes useful (when he was near to freedom).
If you have seen the AWESOME PBS Special MANOR HOUSE -- the guy who
"played" the bulter talked about falling into this trap of "devotion"
to the man he was serving. He said he had always read about such
attitudes from servants in novels, and thought it was just sentimental
propaganda, but found that it was actually his own emotional response
to being put in such a situation.
I stronly disagree that Rowling doesn't know what she is doing with
House Elves. She knows exactly what she is doing and has planned it
carefully, that I will bet on.
What she is doing, in my opinion, is presenting a Great Social Evil
which is accepted by the entire society, to a greater or lesser degree,
as a way of making her point about evil. Evil isn't something the
"other guy' does while cackling and rubbing his hands and gloating
about how evil he is. Evil is something "everybody" does in the firm
belief that if "everybody" does it, it must be right. House Elf
slavery (and it's acceptance by the majority of the characters) exists
for the same reason that ant-Slytherin bigotry is accepted by all the
Gryffindors. For the same reason that FredandGeorge or JamesandSirius
were so popular with "everybody". For the same reason why "everybody"
(including our hero at one point) thought that feeding bad guys to
soul-eating demontors was a nifty notion.
I'll point out another parallel between House Elf slavery, mistreatment
of English Domestics, and American Slavery. People who opposed such
mistreatment were considered idiotic eccentrics, and sneered at and
looked down upon. I remember a line from LITTLE WOMEN where Amy
remarks in alarm that she hopes Jo isn't going to turn out to be a
"reformer", as though it was something very nasty. When the author of
LW was growing up, her family often had a hard time eating thanks to
her father's determined anti-slavery views -- and they were in a Free
State.
As to the nature of HOUSE ELVES, there are creatures like them in
folklore -- helpful but independent spirits with great powers, which
they can use either to help people, or to hurt them very badly.
Leprechauns are one example. And the Leprechauns in the Potterverse
are probably one example of "Wild Elves". The phrase "house elf",
like "house plant" or "house cat", suggests domestication of something
originally wild. I think that Wizards probably took one of the
Brownies or like helpful sprites we know of from folklore, and did
something magically very nasty to them which caused their enslavement.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302778 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 00:00 |
|
Joe Curwen wrote:
> In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>
>>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>>>
>>>>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>>>>
>>>>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
>>>>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>>>>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way Mitchell
>>>treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other times she
>>>treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those connected with
>>>it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
>>
>>
>>Yes, she IS inconsistent.
>>
>>But I suspect that this is what she's probably trying to say:
>>
>>1. Wizards have mistreated house-elves (both as abusive masters and
>>by putting additional spells on them to make them more indentured).
>>
>> but...
>>
>>2. House-elves are, by nature, creatures who love to serve. They
>>would be unhappy if they couldn't serve. Therefore, Hermione's efforts
>>to "free" them are laughable, because the elevs don't want to be
>>freed. They just want to be treated decently while they serve.
>>
>>
>
> I think this is more or less what I said.
>
> Here's the thing. The parallels between Rowling's House Elves and the black
> slaves in Gone with the Wind are too many and too obvious to ignore. GWTW is a
> misty-eyed, racist depiction of slavery.
>
> There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for and one
> against. There is no middle ground, ever. Stories like GWTW are utterly
> repudiated and are seen as noxious (by some). Rowling, not being an American,
> didn't hold herself to the rule that stories involving slaves must be one thing
> or the other wholly; she mixed both lines. To an American such as me, this
> grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling is
> racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which is the
> epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach
> so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
>
There remains a MAJOR difference between Black slavery on Earth and
House elf slavery in the Potter books.
Black slavery was the enslavement of our own kind.
House elves are not wizards - they are a different species.
There is no mention of enslavement of wizards by wizards in the books
anywhere - there is no suggestion that wizards enslaved their own kind
(THe DE's are voluntary).
IF JKR really wanted to address the issue of slavery as such - she would
not have made the slaves another species - she would have made the
slaves the same as wizards - they are not.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302786 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 01:13 |
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:07:30 GMT, "gmckeever" <rom969 [at] sbcglobal.net>
looked at Ron with an evil Grint in his eye and said :
>"Brian Green" <brian.green [at] tiscali.com> wrote in message
>news:e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
>> What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>> The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and
>> should not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such
>> views appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this
>> theme?
>The House Elves are slaves because the alternative was genocide. They were
>supposedly in a war against the Wizarding World and when they lost they
>chose slavery over death. The question is: if they were freed, would they
>revert to their old nature?
When were house elves in a war against wizards?? We've heard about the
Goblin Wars, but they're different creatures entirely. Unfortunately
we've not been told why elves accepted 'enslavement' considering they
have powerful magic of their own.
I think part of what JKR was showing us was that there are different
facets to everything even 'slavery'. By far the greater number of
elves we've met don't consider their lives to be slavery even tho from
an outsiders viewpoint they clearly are since they can't leave from
choice.
Also we can see that 'freeing' the slaves can cause more problems for
them than preserving the status quo. Ok we only have two examples, but
it was lear from the kitchen elves that Dobby was considered to be a
freak and he himself was aware they other elves looked very unkindly
on one of their own rejecting the traditions of the group and were
insulted by Hermione's attempts to 'free' them... regardless of
whether that would have worked or not.
--
Where real Aussies go to tell it like it is!
http://www.australianopinion.com
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302787 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 01:24 |
|
On 19 Jul 2006 14:10:07 -0700, "Karnak17" <karnak17 [at] cs.com> looked at
Ron with an evil Grint in his eye and said :
>Joe Curwen wrote:
>> In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>> >On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
<snip>
>As to the nature of HOUSE ELVES, there are creatures like them in
>folklore -- helpful but independent spirits with great powers, which
>they can use either to help people, or to hurt them very badly.
>Leprechauns are one example. And the Leprechauns in the Potterverse
>are probably one example of "Wild Elves". The phrase "house elf",
>like "house plant" or "house cat", suggests domestication of something
>originally wild. I think that Wizards probably took one of the
>Brownies or like helpful sprites we know of from folklore, and did
>something magically very nasty to them which caused their enslavement.
Apart from the last part I thought this was excellent. I do have a
problem with the final sentence tho. The brownies and elves of
folklore who help humans... for example in the old shoemaker tale...
lived with humans out of choice, there has never been a folk tale
where there was any coercion of magical folk... until now.
The arrangement was one of mutual advantage. The elves worked unseen
at night and they were 'rewarded' with a home and food and gifts.
JKR has chosen to depict the elves as 'enslaved' for her own
reasons... but I'd doubt it was 'nasty'.
--
Where real Aussies go to tell it like it is!
http://www.australianopinion.com
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302795 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 02:20 |
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:00:09 GMT, Thom Madura
<Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> looked at Ron with an evil Grint in his
eye and said :
>Joe Curwen wrote:
>> In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>>>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>>... <snip>To an American such as me, this
>> grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling is
>> racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which is the
>> epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach
>> so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
>There remains a MAJOR difference between Black slavery on Earth and
>House elf slavery in the Potter books.
>Black slavery was the enslavement of our own kind.
>House elves are not wizards - they are a different species.
>There is no mention of enslavement of wizards by wizards in the books
>anywhere - there is no suggestion that wizards enslaved their own kind
>(THe DE's are voluntary).
>IF JKR really wanted to address the issue of slavery as such - she would
>not have made the slaves another species - she would have made the
>slaves the same as wizards - they are not.
I think you're missing a fundamental point here in regards slavery. At
the time the 'moral/ethical' 'justification for slavery was that white
Europeans were considered to be a separate species and that anyone
'dark skinned' was by definition both inferior and in fact sub-human.
The fact that other than skin colour we are identical and could breed
with each other was conveniently ignored.
Body shape etc is different between elves and humans but in all other
respects there are equal to wizards and in some areas superior.
JKR can explore the topic of slavery here by using physical
differences whilst keeping the mental abilities on a par. All she's
done is substitute 'elf' for 'black' and asked what defines 'human'.
--
Where real Aussies go to tell it like it is!
http://www.australianopinion.com
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302798 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 02:47 |
|
On 19 Jul 2006 08:32:14 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
wrote:
>In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>>
>>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>>>>
>>>>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>>>>
>>>>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
>>>>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>>>>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way Mitchell
>>>treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other times she
>>>treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those connected with
>>>it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
>>
>>
>>Yes, she IS inconsistent.
>>
>>But I suspect that this is what she's probably trying to say:
>>
>>1. Wizards have mistreated house-elves (both as abusive masters and
>>by putting additional spells on them to make them more indentured).
>>
>> but...
>>
>>2. House-elves are, by nature, creatures who love to serve. They
>>would be unhappy if they couldn't serve. Therefore, Hermione's efforts
>>to "free" them are laughable, because the elevs don't want to be
>>freed. They just want to be treated decently while they serve.
>>
>>
>I think this is more or less what I said.
>
>Here's the thing. The parallels between Rowling's House Elves and the black
>slaves in Gone with the Wind are too many and too obvious to ignore. GWTW is a
>misty-eyed, racist depiction of slavery.
>
>There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for and one
>against. There is no middle ground, ever.
Well, there is here. Or at least there appears to be.
House-elves are not humans. They're not blacks or whites. They are
completely different life forms, and in Rowling's universe, these
particular life forms love to serve people.
Also, there is a difference between servitude and slavery. There is
nothing inherently ignoble about service. (As Dylan said, "You've got
to serve somebody.") There are also some individuals who actually
enjoy domestic service - I've known of some butlers who honestly feel
that it is the greatest honor in the world to serve a particular
person or family. (They even identify with that social class and vote
for conservative political candidates.) Service is voluntary.
Slavery, on the other hand, is not. Slaves cannot leave if they want
to leave, they cannot choose not to serve, they are subject to
physical & verbal abuse, even death, by their masters, with no legal
recourse.
Rowling seems to be saying that what was wrong was taking noble
servants (the house elves) and turning them into shackled slaves.
I agree that it's not the most PC thing in the world, but until she
tells us otherwise, that appears to be what she's saying.
I'm also from the U.S., and what bothered me when I first read GoF was
the way Winky's dialog read. To my American ear, it read exactly like
the stereotypical "black talk" that one would encounter in "Amos &
Andy" or from 'Mammy' in GWTW. I honestly wondered, for a moment, how
on earth they would ever put that on film without having pickets
marching outside the theatre. But then I remembered that the book was
British, and that the speech patterns almost certainly reflected some
British accent, not an American stereotype.
Another thing to bear in mind is that Dobby was almost certainly
inspired by the old concept of a "brownie". Brownies were a
particular type of fairy which loved to perform domestic chores for
humans when they were asleep. And if you gave them a set of clothes,
they would leave forever. So, she was borrowing the concept from
ancient fairy stories, and just added a touch of modern political
conscience to the mix.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302799 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 02:48 |
|
Sky Rider wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:00:09 GMT, Thom Madura
> <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> looked at Ron with an evil Grint in his
> eye and said :
>
>>Joe Curwen wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>>>
>>>>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>
>
>>>... <snip>To an American such as me, this
>>>grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling is
>>>racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which is the
>>>epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach
>>>so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
>
>
>>There remains a MAJOR difference between Black slavery on Earth and
>>House elf slavery in the Potter books.
>
>
>>Black slavery was the enslavement of our own kind.
>
>
>>House elves are not wizards - they are a different species.
>
>
>>There is no mention of enslavement of wizards by wizards in the books
>>anywhere - there is no suggestion that wizards enslaved their own kind
>>(THe DE's are voluntary).
>
>
>>IF JKR really wanted to address the issue of slavery as such - she would
>>not have made the slaves another species - she would have made the
>>slaves the same as wizards - they are not.
>
>
> I think you're missing a fundamental point here in regards slavery. At
> the time the 'moral/ethical' 'justification for slavery was that white
> Europeans were considered to be a separate species and that anyone
> 'dark skinned' was by definition both inferior and in fact sub-human.
No - I am not.
1 - This is not "THAT" time. ALL of the readers of the Harry Potter
Books know different.
2 - Wizards and House elves ARE a different species.
>
> The fact that other than skin colour we are identical and could breed
> with each other was conveniently ignored.
THere is no indication that Wizards and House elves are the same other
than color (or any other SINGLE characteristic) - and there is no
indication that Wizards and Elves are able to procreate together.
>
> Body shape etc is different between elves and humans but in all other
> respects there are equal to wizards and in some areas superior.
WHere did you get that from?
We are talking about Wizards and Elves - not humans and elves. Humans -
such as Dudley (Bad example - but pick a better one from the books)
don't have magical powers, among other things. THe same "mistake" is
made below as well. THere is an even more major difference between
Wizards, Elves, and humans - one of them actually exist in the real world.
>
> JKR can explore the topic of slavery here by using physical
> differences whilst keeping the mental abilities on a par. All she's
> done is substitute 'elf' for 'black' and asked what defines 'human'.
>
Again - I disagree.
If JKR was going to make this a major topic - and take a run on slavery
- she would have made the slaves the same as the wizards (Maybe a
color difference) rather that truly a different species. However - you
also forget that there are other "species" in the Wizarding world that
are intelligent creatures that are not Wizards. We have Goblins,
Centaurs, and Giants(and probably more). WIth the exception of size - it
appears that Wizards and Giants CAN procreate together (Hagrid is half
giant).
It appears that the "enslavement" of elves is not based on their being
slightly different creatures - since the Goblins would be the same and
are not enslaved.
Again - there is no place in the books where wizards enslave their own
kind - so there is no direct corelation to Human slavery.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302800 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 03:02 |
|
Sky Rider wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2006 14:10:07 -0700, "Karnak17" <karnak17 [at] cs.com> looked at
> Ron with an evil Grint in his eye and said :
> >Joe Curwen wrote:
> >> In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
> >> >On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>
> <snip>
>
> >As to the nature of HOUSE ELVES, there are creatures like them in
> >folklore -- helpful but independent spirits with great powers, which
> >they can use either to help people, or to hurt them very badly.
> >Leprechauns are one example. And the Leprechauns in the Potterverse
> >are probably one example of "Wild Elves". The phrase "house elf",
> >like "house plant" or "house cat", suggests domestication of something
> >originally wild. I think that Wizards probably took one of the
> >Brownies or like helpful sprites we know of from folklore, and did
> >something magically very nasty to them which caused their enslavement.
> Apart from the last part I thought this was excellent. I do have a
> problem with the final sentence tho. The brownies and elves of
> folklore who help humans... for example in the old shoemaker tale...
> lived with humans out of choice, there has never been a folk tale
> where there was any coercion of magical folk... until now.
I'm not sure quite what you are talking about. Firstly, you are dead
wrong when you say that there is never any coercion or attempted
coercion of magical folk in folklore. Happened all the time, but
mostly it didn't work out too well for the human who tried it once the
little creature got its power back.
However, I agree that MOSTLY brownies and elves in FOLKLORE are not
coerced -- certainly not in the same way as House Elves are. They help
either freely, or if forced, only according to specific rules. They
are not anything like slaves. That is exactly what I said. You seem
to think I said the opposite.
> The arrangement was one of mutual advantage. The elves worked unseen
> at night and they were 'rewarded' with a home and food and gifts.
With regards to that story in the Potterverse, it is possible that
Rowling regards that particular story as a Muggles eye-view of House
Elves. Say that Muggles had inherited a pair of House Elves without
knowing it, and didn't even know the elves were their "slaves", but
"freed" them by giving them clothes also without knowing it.
> JKR has chosen to depict the elves as 'enslaved' for her own
> reasons... but I'd doubt it was 'nasty'.
What I was suggesting was that the brownies we know of from Folklore
are the "wild elves", and that Wizards of yore took some Wild Elves and
did some nasty selective breeding or "experimental charms" on them, and
found a way to turn the Free Creatures we know from fairy tales into
the House Elves that we see in HARRY POTTER.
THAT is the behavior I refer to as "nasty", and nasty it certainly is,
if it is what happened.
I mean, if somebody abducted you and genetically modified you so that
you and all your children and grandchildren after you were pathetic,
drooling sycophants from the cradle, I think that you would agree that
it was nasty thing to do to you. Or rather, YOU wouldn't, because
you'd be brainwashined into insisting that you really LIKED being
lobotomized and it was the most wonderful thing that had ever happened
to you. But your friends might think that the people who lobotomized
you and enslaved you had done something pretty nasty, and I would
agree. Even if you chirpilly insisted that you LOVED what had been
done to you and your lobotomizers were the bestest people in the whole
world.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302832 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 09:54 |
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:07:30 GMT, "gmckeever" <rom969 [at] sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
>"Brian Green" <brian.green [at] tiscali.com> wrote in message
>news:e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
>> What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>>
>> The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and
>> should not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such
>> views appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this
>> theme?
>>
>The House Elves are slaves because the alternative was genocide. They were
>supposedly in a war against the Wizarding World and when they lost they
>chose slavery over death. The question is: if they were freed, would they
>revert to their old nature?
>
I doubt that. You just kicked major butt, and now you want these
people cooking your food, cleaning up after you, etc.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302834 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 09:57 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:13:20 +1000, Sky Rider <home [at] therange.com>
wrote:
>I think part of what JKR was showing us was that there are different
>facets to everything even 'slavery'. By far the greater number of
>elves we've met don't consider their lives to be slavery even tho from
>an outsiders viewpoint they clearly are since they can't leave from
>choice.
Do they have no choice? Winky, Screwed up" big time, and was freed.
Could not other Elves also screw up to get freed? I'm sure Crouch
warned any other Elves he had (if any) that Winky's bungling got her
freed, so fly right or they'll be released too. If they're anything
like Winky, this is a threat. I believe most are, since they seem to
like working fro wizards. But if one other Elf wanted to be free, why
not screw up severely?
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302835 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 09:59 |
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:19:06 -0700, *MYSTIC* <mystic [at] thecave.net>
wrote:
>Also since the 'wizarding world' is a society apart from the 'muggle
>world' it is hard for an outsider to judge what is right and wrong in a
>different society.
As Hermione does and fails at. yet DD let's her try. At most he
should be telling her her hats can't free the Elves, they're not her
elves to be freed.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302836 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 10:02 |
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:43:33 GMT, Benjamin Esham <bdesham [at] gmail.com>
wrote:
>The answers to these questions have been, and will be, debated endlessly in
>this newsgroup. (They also presuppose that the house-elves truly want to
>serve wizardkind, and are not just conditioned to believe that that is what
>they want. On the other hand, is there functionally a difference?)
Maybe. perhaps the Elves were unable to survive on their own. Perhaps
Dragons ate them or such. Wizards offered them food and shelter. But
they refused charity. They had to earn it. So, to ensure their
survival, they bounded themselves to wizards forever more. So each
generation can be safe, healthy, happy, have food and shelter, and
still earn it. Maybe elfin society hates freebies. Maybe the insult
is for an outsider to try and free them, wherein they wouldn't mind
one of the family doing so.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302837 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 10:04 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:20:01 +1000, Sky Rider <home [at] therange.com>
wrote:
>I think you're missing a fundamental point here in regards slavery. At
>the time the 'moral/ethical' 'justification for slavery was that white
>Europeans were considered to be a separate species and that anyone
>'dark skinned' was by definition both inferior and in fact sub-human.
>
>The fact that other than skin colour we are identical and could breed
>with each other was conveniently ignored.
The sad part is, many people truly believe god color coded humanity
based on superiority. Intellectually, via hair color.
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302853 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 15:55 |
|
In article <ojjtb2h5c68t08si5ajtgvb8tulkls7a6u [at] 4ax.com>, gjw [at] example.com wrote:
>On 19 Jul 2006 08:32:14 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>>>
>>>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>>>>>
>>>>>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>>>>>
>>>>>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and
should
>>>>>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>>>>>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way Mitchell
>>>>treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other
times she
>>>>treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those
connected with
>>>>it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, she IS inconsistent.
>>>
>>>But I suspect that this is what she's probably trying to say:
>>>
>>>1. Wizards have mistreated house-elves (both as abusive masters and
>>>by putting additional spells on them to make them more indentured).
>>>
>>> but...
>>>
>>>2. House-elves are, by nature, creatures who love to serve. They
>>>would be unhappy if they couldn't serve. Therefore, Hermione's efforts
>>>to "free" them are laughable, because the elevs don't want to be
>>>freed. They just want to be treated decently while they serve.
>>>
>>>
>>I think this is more or less what I said.
>>
>>Here's the thing. The parallels between Rowling's House Elves and the black
>>slaves in Gone with the Wind are too many and too obvious to ignore. GWTW is a
>>misty-eyed, racist depiction of slavery.
>>
>>There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for
and one
>>against. There is no middle ground, ever.
>
>Well, there is here. Or at least there appears to be.
>
>House-elves are not humans. They're not blacks or whites. They are
>completely different life forms, and in Rowling's universe, these
>particular life forms love to serve people.
>
>Also, there is a difference between servitude and slavery. There is
>nothing inherently ignoble about service. (As Dylan said, "You've got
>to serve somebody.") There are also some individuals who actually
>enjoy domestic service - I've known of some butlers who honestly feel
>that it is the greatest honor in the world to serve a particular
>person or family. (They even identify with that social class and vote
>for conservative political candidates.) Service is voluntary.
>Slavery, on the other hand, is not. Slaves cannot leave if they want
>to leave, they cannot choose not to serve, they are subject to
>physical & verbal abuse, even death, by their masters, with no legal
>recourse.
>
>Rowling seems to be saying that what was wrong was taking noble
>servants (the house elves) and turning them into shackled slaves.
>
>I agree that it's not the most PC thing in the world, but until she
>tells us otherwise, that appears to be what she's saying.
>
>I'm also from the U.S., and what bothered me when I first read GoF was
>the way Winky's dialog read. To my American ear, it read exactly like
>the stereotypical "black talk" that one would encounter in "Amos &
>Andy" or from 'Mammy' in GWTW. I honestly wondered, for a moment, how
>on earth they would ever put that on film without having pickets
>marching outside the theatre. But then I remembered that the book was
>British, and that the speech patterns almost certainly reflected some
>British accent, not an American stereotype.
I'm not trying to start anything with the Brits. I do notice, however,
that the only lines given to a black actor in PoA are 'spooky' in nature,
giving me the impression that the kid comes from a voodoo family. That
wouldn't have happened in Hollywood.
>
>Another thing to bear in mind is that Dobby was almost certainly
>inspired by the old concept of a "brownie". Brownies were a
>particular type of fairy which loved to perform domestic chores for
>humans when they were asleep. And if you gave them a set of clothes,
>they would leave forever. So, she was borrowing the concept from
>ancient fairy stories, and just added a touch of modern political
>conscience to the mix.
I hated Dobby from the start, but I do hope that we are yet to see the
full extent of his magical abilities.
--
Chris
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302855 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 17:24 |
|
In article <1153343407.483885.26810 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Karnak17
says...
>
>
>Joe Curwen wrote:
>> In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>> >
>> >On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>> >>>
>> >>>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>> >>>
>>>>>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
>> >>>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>> >>>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>>>IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way Mitchell
>>>>treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other times
>>she
>>>>treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those connected with
>> >>it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
>> >
>> >
>> >Yes, she IS inconsistent.
>> >
>> >But I suspect that this is what she's probably trying to say:
>> >
>> >1. Wizards have mistreated house-elves (both as abusive masters and
>> >by putting additional spells on them to make them more indentured).
>> >
>> > but...
>> >
>> >2. House-elves are, by nature, creatures who love to serve. They
>> >would be unhappy if they couldn't serve. Therefore, Hermione's efforts
>> >to "free" them are laughable, because the elevs don't want to be
>> >freed. They just want to be treated decently while they serve.
>> >
>> >
>> I think this is more or less what I said.
>>
>> Here's the thing. The parallels between Rowling's House Elves and the black
>>slaves in Gone with the Wind are too many and too obvious to ignore. GWTW is a
>> misty-eyed, racist depiction of slavery.
>>
>>There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for and one
>> against. There is no middle ground, ever. Stories like GWTW are utterly
>> repudiated and are seen as noxious (by some).
>
>GWTW is not "for" slavery, any more than IVANHOE is "for" feudalism or
>serfdom. GWTW is told from the pov of a slaveowner's daughter, who
>does MANY morally questionable things to survive.
GWTW *is* for slavery in my opinion. I'm saying Mitchell is racist. Yes, GWTW is
told from a slave owner's perspective and is an accurate portrayal of
then-common attitudes, but the attitudes possessed by Scarlett are upheld -
falsely - by Mitchell's story and her characterization of the slaves.
>
>>Rowling, not being an American,
>>didn't hold herself to the rule that stories involving slaves must be one thing
>> or the other wholly; she mixed both lines. To an American such as me, this
>> grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling is
>>racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which is the
>>epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach
>> so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
>
>I think that Rowling's House Elves are patterned mostly after English
>Domestics of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century.
<<SNIP>>
>
>Similar psychological manifestations occurred in American slavery.
>There were certainly real life "Uncle Toms", or slaves devoted to their
>masters personally. In HUCK FINN (whose author as raised in a
>slaveowning society much like the one he depicts), you will recall that
>JIM had a very House-Elvish attitude.
<<SNIP>>
>In these -- and other -- cases of real-life oppression, obsequiousness
>and devotion to one's oppressors is partly assumed for defensive
>purposes, partly a bit of Stockholme Syndrome -- a useful and necessary
>adaption to the situation, but which can be thrown off by some (like
>Jim) when it no longer becomes useful
<<SNIP>>
For economy, I snipped portions of the above three paragraphs. You are saying
that we can identify certain common psychological traits within the servant and
slave classes, and those traits can also be found in Rowling's depiction of
House Elves. I agree with this.
Why would she think to add such realism to her depiction of House Elves? Sky
Rider said it best downthread:
"JKR can explore the topic of slavery here by using physical
differences whilst keeping the mental abilities on a par. All she's
done is substitute 'elf' for 'black' and asked what defines 'human'."
So. It is pertinent to compare the depiction of black slaves in books such as
GWTW, Huckleberry Finn, etc., to Rowling's depiction of House Elves in her
books.
I said in my last post that when a book includes slave characters, that book
*must* make a case either for or against slavery. This is true even of the
mini-series you mentioned - the writer made clear that the psychology of
servitude was diseased. Rowling so far has not made a clear case, and that
drives me nuts. If anything, the depiction of House Elves in the books looks a
lot more like GWTW than Finn, and so its not enjoyable for me to read that part
of the books. Some of the similarities include the pidgin english, the
childishness, plot points (Dobby is freed, wanders around free for a while,
comes back because he prefers servitude, just like Uncle Sam in GWTW), and
attitudes ("They. Like. It.").
If I asked Rowling if she was racist, she would laugh in my face for good
reason. I honestly don't think she is racist, but I do wish she hadn't started
the House Elf thing without understanding that such a story line cannot be
dropped. It requires the writer take a stand and carry through a moral message.
One last point concerning the rest of your post. I'd like to expand on what Sky
Rider said. If House Elves are a different species and one attuned to slavery,
is it OK to make slaves of them? The answer I think is "no". By Kant's law of
Moral Reciprocity, if a being is sentient, then all moral laws apply. We can't
enslave them if we can't enslave people.
Thanks for your post,
--
Joe
<<SNIP REST>>
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302856 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 17:28 |
|
In article <doitb2lk0iiimr53et70evfrf0vkbaq0bg [at] 4ax.com>, Sky Rider says...
>
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:00:09 GMT, Thom Madura
><Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> looked at Ron with an evil Grint in his
>eye and said :
>>Joe Curwen wrote:
>>> In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>>>>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>
>>>... <snip>To an American such as me, this
>>> grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling is
>>>racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which is the
>>>epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach
>>> so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
>
>>There remains a MAJOR difference between Black slavery on Earth and
>>House elf slavery in the Potter books.
>
>>Black slavery was the enslavement of our own kind.
>
>>House elves are not wizards - they are a different species.
>
>>There is no mention of enslavement of wizards by wizards in the books
>>anywhere - there is no suggestion that wizards enslaved their own kind
>>(THe DE's are voluntary).
>
>>IF JKR really wanted to address the issue of slavery as such - she would
>>not have made the slaves another species - she would have made the
>>slaves the same as wizards - they are not.
>
>I think you're missing a fundamental point here in regards slavery. At
>the time the 'moral/ethical' 'justification for slavery was that white
>Europeans were considered to be a separate species and that anyone
>'dark skinned' was by definition both inferior and in fact sub-human.
>
>The fact that other than skin colour we are identical and could breed
>with each other was conveniently ignored.
>
>Body shape etc is different between elves and humans but in all other
>respects there are equal to wizards and in some areas superior.
>
>JKR can explore the topic of slavery here by using physical
>differences whilst keeping the mental abilities on a par. All she's
>done is substitute 'elf' for 'black' and asked what defines 'human'.
>
Wow, well said.
This is true of all speculative fiction. The ideas and situations are always
analogous to human ideas, social structures, attitudes, historical events,
technology trends and the Natural World.
--
Joe
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302857 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 17:31 |
|
In article <JXxvg.149976$mF2.140441 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Thom
Madura says...
>
>Joe Curwen wrote:
>
>> In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>>
>>>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
>>>>
>>>>>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House Elves?
>>>>>
>>>>>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and should
>>>>>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>>>>>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way Mitchell
>>>>treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other times she
>>>>treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those connected with
>>>>it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, she IS inconsistent.
>>>
>>>But I suspect that this is what she's probably trying to say:
>>>
>>>1. Wizards have mistreated house-elves (both as abusive masters and
>>>by putting additional spells on them to make them more indentured).
>>>
>>> but...
>>>
>>>2. House-elves are, by nature, creatures who love to serve. They
>>>would be unhappy if they couldn't serve. Therefore, Hermione's efforts
>>>to "free" them are laughable, because the elevs don't want to be
>>>freed. They just want to be treated decently while they serve.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think this is more or less what I said.
>>
>> Here's the thing. The parallels between Rowling's House Elves and the black
>>slaves in Gone with the Wind are too many and too obvious to ignore. GWTW is a
>> misty-eyed, racist depiction of slavery.
>>
>>There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for and one
>> against. There is no middle ground, ever. Stories like GWTW are utterly
>> repudiated and are seen as noxious (by some). Rowling, not being an American,
>>didn't hold herself to the rule that stories involving slaves must be one thing
>> or the other wholly; she mixed both lines. To an American such as me, this
>> grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling is
>>racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which is the
>>epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways approach
>> so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
>>
>
>
>There remains a MAJOR difference between Black slavery on Earth and
>House elf slavery in the Potter books.
>
>Black slavery was the enslavement of our own kind.
>
>House elves are not wizards - they are a different species.
I disagree on a couple of levels. First as Sky Rider said, House Elves are the
fictitious analog of black slaves, IMO. Second, even if there were a different
species, as long as they are sentient and know right from wrong, the law of
moral reciprocity states that they must be accorded all rights and be treated
with the golden rule.
>
>There is no mention of enslavement of wizards by wizards in the books
>anywhere - there is no suggestion that wizards enslaved their own kind
>(THe DE's are voluntary).
>
>IF JKR really wanted to address the issue of slavery as such - she would
>not have made the slaves another species - she would have made the
>slaves the same as wizards - they are not.
>
She *did* address the issue of slavery, did she not? I'm saying that she didn't
do a good job of it, yet.
--
Joe
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302860 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 19:03 |
|
"Joe Curwen" <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com> wrote in message
news:e9o7l7023ut [at] drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <JXxvg.149976$mF2.140441 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Thom
> Madura says...
>>
>>Joe Curwen wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>>>
>>>>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green
>>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>What point do you think JKR is making about the treatment of House
>>>>>>Elves?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The natural assumption is that they should be given their freedom and
>>>>>>should
>>>>>>not be slaves, but often JKR appears to make those who hold such views
>>>>>>appear naive - what do you think she is trying to do with this theme?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>IMO, Rowling isn't sure. At times she treats the issue the same way
>>>>>Mitchell
>>>>>treats the issue of slavery and slaves in Gone with the Wind. At other
>>>>>times she
>>>>>treats it as if it's an institution that morally corrupts those
>>>>>connected with
>>>>>it like in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, she IS inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>>But I suspect that this is what she's probably trying to say:
>>>>
>>>>1. Wizards have mistreated house-elves (both as abusive masters and
>>>>by putting additional spells on them to make them more indentured).
>>>>
>>>> but...
>>>>
>>>>2. House-elves are, by nature, creatures who love to serve. They
>>>>would be unhappy if they couldn't serve. Therefore, Hermione's efforts
>>>>to "free" them are laughable, because the elevs don't want to be
>>>>freed. They just want to be treated decently while they serve.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is more or less what I said.
>>>
>>> Here's the thing. The parallels between Rowling's House Elves and the
>>> black
>>>slaves in Gone with the Wind are too many and too obvious to ignore. GWTW
>>>is a
>>> misty-eyed, racist depiction of slavery.
>>>
>>>There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for
>>>and one
>>> against. There is no middle ground, ever. Stories like GWTW are utterly
>>> repudiated and are seen as noxious (by some). Rowling, not being an
>>> American,
>>>didn't hold herself to the rule that stories involving slaves must be one
>>>thing
>>> or the other wholly; she mixed both lines. To an American such as me,
>>> this
>>> grates. I don't want to cause a ruckus, and I'm not saying that Rowling
>>> is
>>>racist (except that she created a race that enjoys its enslavement which
>>>is the
>>>epitome of a kind of racism), but her wishy-washy-having-it-both-ways
>>>approach
>>> so far really bugs me personally, and I'll just leave it at that.
>>>
>>
>>
>>There remains a MAJOR difference between Black slavery on Earth and
>>House elf slavery in the Potter books.
>>
>>Black slavery was the enslavement of our own kind.
>>
>>House elves are not wizards - they are a different species.
>
> I disagree on a couple of levels. First as Sky Rider said, House Elves are
> the
> fictitious analog of black slaves, IMO. Second, even if there were a
> different
> species, as long as they are sentient and know right from wrong, the law
> of
> moral reciprocity states that they must be accorded all rights and be
> treated
> with the golden rule.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>There is no mention of enslavement of wizards by wizards in the books
>>anywhere - there is no suggestion that wizards enslaved their own kind
>>(THe DE's are voluntary).
>>
>>IF JKR really wanted to address the issue of slavery as such - she would
>>not have made the slaves another species - she would have made the
>>slaves the same as wizards - they are not.
>>
>
> She *did* address the issue of slavery, did she not? I'm saying that she
> didn't
> do a good job of it, yet.
>
> --
> Joe
>
Why are you sssoooo upset by a childrens story, she probably didn't even
imagine people would connect house elves with slaves from a couple of
centuries ago!! We british don't worry about things that happened so long
ago.
Snake Lady
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302865 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 21:00 |
|
[copius snippage for brevity]
Joe Curwen wrote:
> There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for
> and one against. There is no middle ground, ever.
Joe Curwen wrote:
> I said in my last post that when a book includes slave characters, that
> book *must* make a case either for or against slavery. This is true even
> of the mini-series you mentioned - the writer made clear that the
> psychology of servitude was diseased. Rowling so far has not made a clear
> case, and that drives me nuts. [...]
>
> [...] I do wish she hadn't started the House Elf thing without
> understanding that such a story line cannot be dropped. It requires the
> writer take a stand and carry through a moral message.
It's entirely possible that I'm just being thick here, but... why? Why is
it necessary for an author to take a stand one way or the other? Isn't it
sometimes sufficient for the author to let the story speak for itself? Why
must you require the story to be clearly broken into a dichotomy of moral
black and white? (Er, no pun intended.)
> One last point concerning the rest of your post. I'd like to expand on
> what Sky Rider said. If House Elves are a different species and one
> attuned to slavery, is it OK to make slaves of them? The answer I think is
> "no". By Kant's law of Moral Reciprocity, if a being is sentient, then all
> moral laws apply. We can't enslave them if we can't enslave people.
This is a bit tricky... if house-elves were completely similar to humans in
all attributes other than appearance, then I agree that it would be wrong to
enslave them. However, we've been led to believe that—at least for the most
part—house-elves really /want/ to serve humans. Wouldn't it satisfy the
golden rule, then, to give the house-elves what they really want—to serve
wizardkind?
(Even with this considered, I think it would be best if they were at least
given a choice, on an individual basis, as to whether or not they would
serve, and whom.)
--
Benjamin D. Esham
bdesham [at] gmail.com | AIM: bdesham128 | Jabber: same as e-mail
Cricket is just baseball on Valium. — Robin Williams
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302877 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 22:00 |
|
In article <pan.2006.07.20.18.59.48.246379 [at] gmail.com>, Benjamin Esham says...
>
>[copius snippage for brevity]
>
>Joe Curwen wrote:
>
>> There are two archtypes for American stories involving slavery, one for
>> and one against. There is no middle ground, ever.
>
>Joe Curwen wrote:
>
>> I said in my last post that when a book includes slave characters, that
>> book *must* make a case either for or against slavery. This is true even
>> of the mini-series you mentioned - the writer made clear that the
>> psychology of servitude was diseased. Rowling so far has not made a clear
>> case, and that drives me nuts. [...]
>>
>> [...] I do wish she hadn't started the House Elf thing without
>> understanding that such a story line cannot be dropped. It requires the
>> writer take a stand and carry through a moral message.
>
>It's entirely possible that I'm just being thick here, but... why? Why is
>it necessary for an author to take a stand one way or the other? Isn't it
>sometimes sufficient for the author to let the story speak for itself? Why
>must you require the story to be clearly broken into a dichotomy of moral
>black and white? (Er, no pun intended.)
I think this part of the story is speaking for itself. It's just that I don't
like what it says so far. Why should a story involving slavery have a clear
moral, pedagogical purpose? Because its important.
When I say these things, I say them in part because I believe them and in part
because of where and when I grew up. I'm not saying that Rowling is doing
anything wrong, or if others don't agree with me, that they must be wrong.
However, I do think my reaction is very typically American. Rowling, nor anyone
else, has no obligation to consider the reaction of a subset of her audience to
her treatment of House Elves, but she and others shouldn't be surprised by it,
either. Dobby is about one tambourine short of being a minstrel and so it bugs.
>
>> One last point concerning the rest of your post. I'd like to expand on
>> what Sky Rider said. If House Elves are a different species and one
>> attuned to slavery, is it OK to make slaves of them? The answer I think is
>> "no". By Kant's law of Moral Reciprocity, if a being is sentient, then all
>> moral laws apply. We can't enslave them if we can't enslave people.
>
>This is a bit tricky... if house-elves were completely similar to humans in
>all attributes other than appearance, then I agree that it would be wrong to
>enslave them. However, we've been led to believe that—at least for the most
>part—house-elves really /want/ to serve humans. Wouldn't it satisfy the
>golden rule, then, to give the house-elves what they really want—to serve
>wizardkind?
No!
>
>(Even with this considered, I think it would be best if they were at least
>given a choice, on an individual basis, as to whether or not they would
>serve, and whom.)
>
On this issue, I'm with Hermione.
--
Joe
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302881 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 23:09 |
|
Joe Curwen wrote:
> Benjamin Esham wrote:
> >
> > Joe Curwen wrote:
> >
> > > Rowling so far has not made a clear case, and that drives me nuts.
> > > [...] I do wish she hadn't started the House Elf thing without
> > > understanding that such a story line cannot be dropped. It requires
> > > the writer take a stand and carry through a moral message.
> >
> > It's entirely possible that I'm just being thick here, but... why? Why
> > is it necessary for an author to take a stand one way or the other?
> > Isn't it sometimes sufficient for the author to let the story speak for
> > itself? Why must you require the story to be clearly broken into a
> > dichotomy of moral black and white? (Er, no pun intended.)
>
> I think this part of the story is speaking for itself. It's just that I
> don't like what it says so far. Why should a story involving slavery have
> a clear moral, pedagogical purpose? Because its important.
>
> When I say these things, I say them in part because I believe them and in
> part because of where and when I grew up. I'm not saying that Rowling is
> doing anything wrong, or if others don't agree with me, that they must be
> wrong. However, I do think my reaction is very typically American.
> Rowling, nor anyone else, has no obligation to consider the reaction of a
> subset of her audience to her treatment of House Elves, but she and others
> shouldn't be surprised by it, either. Dobby is about one tambourine short
> of being a minstrel and so it bugs.
(Hopefully I'm not just beating this thread to death...)
I'm afraid I still don't understand here. /Why/ is it important for a story
involving slavery to have a clear moral purpose? And what do you mean about
an American reaction—are you referring to a need to see the world divided
clearly into "right" and "wrong"? I guess I don't know enough about your
personal background and context to understand quite what you're saying.
> > > One last point concerning the rest of your post. I'd like to expand on
> > > what Sky Rider said. If House Elves are a different species and one
> > > attuned to slavery, is it OK to make slaves of them? The answer I
> > > think is "no". By Kant's law of Moral Reciprocity, if a being is
> > > sentient, then all moral laws apply. We can't enslave them if we can't
> > > enslave people.
> >
> > This is a bit tricky... if house-elves were completely similar to humans
> > in all attributes other than appearance, then I agree that it would be
> > wrong to enslave them. However, we've been led to believe that—at least
> > for the most part—house-elves really /want/ to serve humans. Wouldn't
> > it satisfy the golden rule, then, to give the house-elves what they
> > really want—to serve wizardkind?
>
> No!
Why not? Doesn't the Golden Rule* say—or at least imply—that you should
"make other people happy as much as you can"? If house-elves are truly,
honestly, made happy by serving wizards, then shouldn't they be allowed to?
Please don't get me wrong—I'm not saying that anyone should be forced to do
anything against their will, and I'm certainly not saying that human slavery
was right in any way. I just don't see how the Golden Rule conflicts with
house-elves working for wizards.
* I'm assuming this is what you're referring to with "Kant's Law of Moral
Reciprocity."
--
Benjamin D. Esham
bdesham [at] gmail.com | AIM: bdesham128 | Jabber: same as e-mail
"Rincewind tried to force the memory out of his mind, but it was
rather enjoying itself there, terrorising the other occupants
and kicking over the furniture." — Terry Pratchett, /TCoM/
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302883 ] |
Thu, 20 July 2006 23:43 |
|
In article <pan.2006.07.20.21.09.44.806608 [at] gmail.com>, Benjamin Esham says...
>
>Joe Curwen wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Esham wrote:
>> >
>> > Joe Curwen wrote:
>> >
>> > > Rowling so far has not made a clear case, and that drives me nuts.
>> > > [...] I do wish she hadn't started the House Elf thing without
>> > > understanding that such a story line cannot be dropped. It requires
>> > > the writer take a stand and carry through a moral message.
>> >
>> > It's entirely possible that I'm just being thick here, but... why? Why
>> > is it necessary for an author to take a stand one way or the other?
>> > Isn't it sometimes sufficient for the author to let the story speak for
>> > itself? Why must you require the story to be clearly broken into a
>> > dichotomy of moral black and white? (Er, no pun intended.)
>>
>> I think this part of the story is speaking for itself. It's just that I
>> don't like what it says so far. Why should a story involving slavery have
>> a clear moral, pedagogical purpose? Because its important.
>>
>> When I say these things, I say them in part because I believe them and in
>> part because of where and when I grew up. I'm not saying that Rowling is
>> doing anything wrong, or if others don't agree with me, that they must be
>> wrong. However, I do think my reaction is very typically American.
>> Rowling, nor anyone else, has no obligation to consider the reaction of a
>> subset of her audience to her treatment of House Elves, but she and others
>> shouldn't be surprised by it, either. Dobby is about one tambourine short
>> of being a minstrel and so it bugs.
>
>(Hopefully I'm not just beating this thread to death...)
>
>I'm afraid I still don't understand here. /Why/ is it important for a story
>involving slavery to have a clear moral purpose?
I can't speak for others, but to me the issue feels too real and immediate to
treat in a diffident manner. Some people, maybe even a lot of people, still feel
the sting of it here.
>And what do you mean about
>an American reaction—are you referring to a need to see the world divided
>clearly into "right" and "wrong"? I guess I don't know enough about your
>personal background and context to understand quite what you're saying.
I was speaking about the depiction of slaves and slave stories only. I can't
claim my reactions to things in general are always typical, so best not to
generalize.
>
>> > > One last point concerning the rest of your post. I'd like to expand on
>> > > what Sky Rider said. If House Elves are a different species and one
>> > > attuned to slavery, is it OK to make slaves of them? The answer I
>> > > think is "no". By Kant's law of Moral Reciprocity, if a being is
>> > > sentient, then all moral laws apply. We can't enslave them if we can't
>> > > enslave people.
>> >
>> > This is a bit tricky... if house-elves were completely similar to humans
>> > in all attributes other than appearance, then I agree that it would be
>> > wrong to enslave them. However, we've been led to believe that—at least
>> > for the most part—house-elves really /want/ to serve humans. Wouldn't
>> > it satisfy the golden rule, then, to give the house-elves what they
>> > really want—to serve wizardkind?
>>
>> No!
>
>Why not? Doesn't the Golden Rule* say—or at least imply—that you should
>"make other people happy as much as you can"?
No, that's the silver rule. The golden rule when applied doesn't necessarily
make other people happy, it only ensures that others are treated justly. And so
endeth the diatribe, I'm out of steam on this topic.
Thanks!
--
Joe
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302896 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 01:59 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:55:05 +0200, cwlNO [at] SPAMfreenet.de (Green-Eyed
Chris) looked at Ron with an evil Grint in his eye and said :
>In article <ojjtb2h5c68t08si5ajtgvb8tulkls7a6u [at] 4ax.com>, gjw [at] example.com wrote:
>>On 19 Jul 2006 08:32:14 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>wrote:
>>>In article <ga9rb25hfffjh2aq0vgv7rskj1ptjmd8fu [at] 4ax.com>, gjw says...
>>>>On 18 Jul 2006 12:16:12 -0700, Joe Curwen <jcurwen [at] freeonline.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>In article <e9ikeo$ibo$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Brian Green says...
<snip>
>I'm not trying to start anything with the Brits. I do notice, however,
>that the only lines given to a black actor in PoA are 'spooky' in nature,
>giving me the impression that the kid comes from a voodoo family. That
>wouldn't have happened in Hollywood.
And yet in GoF we have Angelina going to the dance with Fred (?)... I
wouldn't have thought a black girl agreeing to go to a dance with a
white guy was in the least spooky... but if that's your perception so
be it...
<snip>
>I hated Dobby from the start, but I do hope that we are yet to see the
>full extent of his magical abilities.
I wish they'd not made Dobby so much like Putin (the Russian
leader)... now *them* looking so much alike *is* spooky!! :D
--
Where real Aussies go to tell it like it is!
http://www.australianopinion.com
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302906 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 03:19 |
|
Benjamin Esham wrote:
-snip- snip- snip->
> (Hopefully I'm not just beating this thread to death...)
>
> I'm afraid I still don't understand here. /Why/ is it important for
> a story involving slavery to have a clear moral purpose? And what do
> you mean about an American reaction-are you referring to a need to
> see the world divided clearly into "right" and "wrong"? I guess I
> don't know enough about your personal background and context to
> understand quite what you're saying.
>
-more snip- -snip-
yeap; I agree.
It's interesting that this is ONLY compared to slavery in America
semi-recently [last few hundred years]. Why not also talk of slavery in
Egypt thousands of years ago?
I also find it's interesting that the Lord of the Ring movie changes Frodo
and Sam relationship from master/servant from the book to more of a
friendship relationship in the movie. [Yes I do realize that there was a
friendship bond ALSO in the book and servant is not exactly like slave]
Ken
|
|
|
| Re: House Elves and Human Rights [message #302922 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 05:50 |
|
Joe Curwen wrote:
> In article <1153343407.483885.26810 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Karnak17
> says...
<snip>
> GWTW *is* for slavery in my opinion. I'm saying Mitchell is racist. Yes, GWTW is
> told from a slave owner's perspective and is an accurate portrayal of
> then-common attitudes, but the attitudes possessed by Scarlett are upheld -
> falsely - by Mitchell's story and her characterization of the slaves.
Well, I saw it but once over a decade ago. But I specifically remember
a scene where Ashley (?) is rebuking Scarlett for her use of convicts
to replace slave labor. In his view, using convicts WAS slave labor,
and hence morally wrong. When she calls him a hypocrite due to his own
past slaveowning, HE replies that he would have freed his slaves once
his father died, if the war hadn't beat him to it.
Considering that Ashley and his wife were, from what I recall, the
voices of morality and conscience in the story, I find it hard to
square my memory of that conversation with a "Slavery was Good"
morality on the author's part.
<snip>
> For economy, I snipped portions of the above three paragraphs. You are saying
> that we can identify certain common psychological traits within the servant and
> slave classes, and those traits can also be found in Rowling's depiction of
> House Elves. I agree with this.
>
> Why would she think to add such realism to her depiction of House Elves? Sky
> Rider said it best downthread:
>
> "JKR can explore the topic of slavery here by using physical
> differences whilst keeping the mental abilities on a par. All she's
> done is substitute 'elf' for 'black' and asked what defines 'human'."
>
> So. It is pertinent to compare the depiction of black slaves in books such as
> GWTW, Huckleberry Finn, etc., to Rowling's depiction of House Elves in her
> books.
>
> I said in my last post that when a book includes slave characters, that book
> *must* make a case either for or against slavery. This is true even of the
> mini-series you mentioned - the writer made clear that the psychology of
> servitude was diseased.
It was a documentary. No "author", just a real man describing his
actual real life feelings and experiences "playing" a butler in a
historical recreation. He didn't say it to "make a case" against
domestic service. He said it because it was what had actually happened
to him.
Now. How has his remark "made clear that the psychology of servitude
was diseased", more than Rowling has? He never tried to fling himself
into the fireplace because he spoke ill of his master. He never ironed
his hands, or murdered because his master told him to. He never
worshiped the mistress who cut off his mother's head and stuck it on
a wall. By portraying House Elves doing such things, Rowling has gone
exponentially farther than MANOR HOUSE, or UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS, or
GOSFORD PARK, in pointing out the disease of servitude. Heck, she
could give BELOVED a run for its money.
The only thing that she has failed to do is have the Good Guys
unambiguously state in unison the moral obviously enough that even
Harry gets it. Are WE - as opposed to Harry -- honestly so dumb that
this is necessary?
> Rowling so far has not made a clear case, and that
> drives me nuts. If anything, the depiction of House Elves in the books looks a
> lot more like GWTW than Finn, and so its not enjoyable for me to read that part
> of the books. Some of the similarities include the pidgin english, the
> childishness, plot points (Dobby is freed, wanders around free for a while,
> comes back because he prefers servitude, just like Uncle Sam in GWTW), and
> attitudes ("They. Like. It.").
Dobby didn't "prefer servitude", he "needed a job". And
neither Dobby nor Uncle Sam are behaving unreasonably. It is scarcely
unheard of for a slave freed late in life to remain in service to his
old masters, or continue doing the work he was trained for as a slave.
That sort of thing happened in real life, and knowing this fact
doesn't make me suddenly start wondering if slavery or serfdom were
maybe good things after all.
> If I asked Rowling if she was racist, she would laugh in my face for good
> reason. I honestly don't think she is racist, but I do wish she hadn't started
> the House Elf thing without understanding that such a story line cannot be
> dropped. It requires the writer take a stand and carry through a moral message.
Well, I think that her message is this.
She has said that her Christian beliefs would be spoilery for the
ending of the series. | |
|
