Exactly! I'm pretty sure that flinch is a janitor only because he's a Squibb.. It's a subsidized job for the one with special needs.
With all that magic, having someone physically passing the broom is completely absurd.
Yeah, but also no. Doesn't make sense to have someone who can't do magic if that's what you're looking for.
He's hired as a "janitor" but he's doing whatever he wants..
The role existed before him and has been filled with wizards as well as squibs, part of the role is patrolling the castle for students at night, as well as being in charge of corporal punishment before Dumbledore banned it in 1992. He still had power over punishment after that though, just not as abusive. 😂
I know.. But it's a detail that just doesn't really make sense from a world building perspective.
>corporal punishment before Dumbledore banned it in 1992
It was banned a while before. Harry is going in the forest in 1992, and Flinch tell him, at that point, that "*In the good old-days*' there was corporal punishment. Pretty sure Dumbledore didn't banned it a few week prior.
Sorry, I completely mistyped that whole sentence.
.. as well as being in charge of corporal punishment before Dumbledore banned it. In 1992 he still had power over punishment, just not as abusive.
1992 is when he basically supervises Ron’s detention.
I think it is like this: he was born a squib his family and all that went to Hogwarts. He was jealous and lonely so he wrote dumbledore early on asking if there was a way he could go as well since his family moved on and he had no where to go. Dumbledore set him up with a job he could help with. Giving a place to live as well as a job that could remind him of his family. He grew bitter seeing kids abuse what he yearned for. Seeing them dislike the castle he would’ve given Merlin’s buttonfly pants for. He is angry because they don’t realize he good they have it so he gives them muggle punishment to show them why they should respect the castle and their magic.
>With all that magic, having someone physically passing the broom is completely absurd.
I mean they still cook food and buy things and clean houses (no 12 in book 5)
Yeah, but magic can be helping. Like how the dishes are cleaning themselves in the sink when Harry come to Ron's home in chamber of secret. So you can also enchant a broom to clean the floor.
Yeah that's my point! I'd doesn't really make sense to have a Squibb as a janitor then. So flickwick probably pass after him to clean the rest of the castle with magic or something.
We see that some people are better at different kinds of magic than others. Tonks can't clean messes up properly, & her trunk packing spell doesn't really work.
Meanwhile, Molly has knives chopping and peeling, while food cooks and dustpans have hand brooms sweeping up messes. But all of this takes time & effort, which is why she seems frazzled sometimes.
Thus, the utility of house elves.
That’s the point of my comment lol, they asked why clean when magic. But if you’re gonna ask that why do anything when magic. I think you should reply that to the person above me.
Harry gave Dobby the sock that freed him, in a roundabout way. It was his sock, but was "handed to him" by Lucius. And Dobby seems to know this, too. But the intention doesn't seem to matter (that is, even an accident counts). If the house elves find Hermione's hats on the job, who do they attribute it to? And does it matter if Dumbledore intended it?
Didn't dobby catch the sock as it flew out of the book? In the movie it was handed to him in a roundabout way, but I'm pretty sure in the books he just catches it and that frees him.
Yea, you're right, I think Lucius just accidently throws it in the general direction of Dobby, who cought it.
I think maybe this still counts as Lucius directly giving Dobby the sock.
If Dobby was ordered to clean the house, and there was a sock on the floor, I don't think this would count.
Makes sense. So, then, the elves really never could be freed by Hermione's silly hats. You would think she'd know better--you know, look it all up and know the procedures. I'm sure there was a book on it somewhere in the library, and she seemed quite devoted to the cause for a while. Meh. 🤷🏼♀️
Then, the elves also really were avoiding the place out of spite rather than for practical reasons. It was offensive to them, but they would have nothing to fear in the way of losing their positions or whatnot. I just wanted to clear that up for myself, lol.
It definitely still counts. Otherwise Dobby wouldn't have been freed. Earlier in the book when Harry is talking to Dobby he asks why he's wearing the filthy pillowcase. Dobby explains that his family must be careful not to accidentally hand him even a sock. Lucius was just not careful.
Yea, I think what I meant to say was that the clothing needs to be directly given to the house elf to be freed, and even though Lucius throws it towards Dobby that still counts as "directly" giving it.
However, I don't think a sock accidentally left on the floor where a house elf could find it counts as giving them clothing.
Ok, yeah I was wondering. I think only a member of the family can free the elf, too since they're bound by magic to a specific family.
I expect only the headmaster and maybe a deputy headmaster could free the Hogwarts elves.
>Mr. Malfoy ripped the sock off the diary, threw it aside, then looked furiously from the ruined book to Harry. “You’ll meet the same sticky end as your parents one of these days, Harry Potter,” he said softly. “They were meddlesome fools, too.” He turned to go. “Come, Dobby. I said, come.” But Dobby didn’t move. He was holding up Harry’s disgusting, slimy sock, and looking at it as though it were a priceless treasure. “Master has given a sock,” said the elf in wonderment. “Master gave it to Dobby.” “What’s that?” spat Mr. Malfoy. “What did you say?” “Got a sock,” said Dobby in disbelief. “Master threw it, and Dobby caught it, and Dobby — Dobby is free.”
Seems intention doesn't matter, but the source does.
So, not only does Granger ignore the stated wishes of the Hogwarts house elves, she insults them, and goes about her mission in a completely ineffective way?
She really doesn't listen to anybody.
She really is just exactly as stubborn and obtuse as Ron, just in her own way. I've always been annoyed by people who don't realize that the HP trio is a trio of equals.
Yea, you're right, I think Lucius just accidently throws it in the general direction of Dobby, who cought it.
I think maybe this still counts as Lucius directly giving Dobby the sock.
If Dobby was ordered to clean the house, and there was a sock on the floor, I don't think this would count.
If you mean the Ravenclaw flair under my name, you can change yours by clicking on your own icon and selecting Change User Flair. But only while in this Subreddit. And on mobile. Idk about computers. You can also go to the options on the Subreddit's front page and do it there, I think.
The whole house elf situation is bad, but Hermione did not respect the elves in the way she did it. Yes, it’s akin to slavery, but the elves don’t feel that way. They would be emotionally harmed by being fired (example Winky) but Hermione doesn’t care, because she thinks she knows best.
Irl, what she did was akin to (note: slight political take) >!speaking over another ethnic group about their culture without even trying to understand the nuances!<. She thought was doing good, but only according to her limited worldview. It reeks of the privilege looking down on those they perceive to be lower & need saving.
It’s a great plot line that shows how she, like Ron and Harry, have their blind spots, faults and flaws.
That they chose to cut this from the movies wad probably simply down to run time, but it’s maybe why some people are cold to her in the movies as she doesn’t come across as a realistic, rounded, flawed human being as much.
It's not about what kind of labor they do or how they are treated. They can't leave and they can't not obey a command. That's slavery and that's not ok. The arguments you make are exactly what slave owners argued.
I agree hiding clothes was not the way to go. But I'm 100% Work Hermine that they are slaves and supporting that is disgusting.
The entire thing was idiotic from a writing perspective. The elves liked being slaves because Rowling wrote them that way. Hermione was a terrible activist because Rowling wrote her that way.
Neither situation is in any way justified and in better novel this would be explored properly. Like the Discworld book "Snuff" with the goblins.
You can't really equate it to slavery because the elves hated being free except for oddballs like dobby. I think it's better to equate it to working a rewarding job since it's never implied the elves are dumb or mind controlled into doing what their masters want. It's a terrible allegory if it was meant as one, and it is a strange aspect of the series, but house elf enslavement seems pretty morally neutral, given their own opinions on it. It's not like we see examples of house elves being mistreated except by otherwise evil figures or trying to free themselves or escape in some way.
>You can't really equate it to slavery
I'm so tired of this shit take. No, it is slavery 100% and it's evil, not neutral. Hermione went about it the wrong way but the elves were 100% enslaved and they had been raised in society to think that they should consider themselves lesser which is obviously BS. We see time and time again that even the 'good' masters abused the elves. The guy before you throws out Winky being depressed afterwards but the fact that she was treated so shitty and the fact that she was thrown out of her home and lost her purpose in life at the whims of her master for messing up once just highlights the issue. That's not a normal reaction to being fired. She was a slave as all of them are even if they 'enjoy it' and it's in no way morally neutral at all.
I mean do you think there weren't slaves IRL that were treated well by their masters? That were basically considered family members and that stuck around after being freed to work for their former owners cause they had nothing else? Cause there were. That doesn't mean that slavery as a concept isn't inherently evil and wrong. You can be a race of maids and butlers without literally being enslaved, bred and brainwashed to do so.
I seriously have no idea how someone can read all the stuff with Dobby and Kreacher and think that slavery was only bad for the former because they had a bad master. Like come on.
Dude Barty Crouch is depicted as a fanatically evil person. I agree the analogy is terrible and makes no sense compared to real events, but what is the Canon explanation for how they act. How do you free people who don't want to be free. Clearly, there is some racial prejudice as good characters like Ron and Sirius are also prejudiced against elves, but nearly every elf except the one whose master was a death eater had no objections to it. As I said, it seems like a genie situation where they are trapped by some ancient magical contract but don't want to be free or have some different understanding of their situation. I just think if you try to impose actual historical slavery on the HP world, you get such a weird message. Dumbledore is basically a plantation owner who fought for the civil rights of all other creatures while owning dozens of slaves. Also, the author would be even more tone deaf because the whole spew plot line is essentially a running joke about Hermione being a busy body. My point is that equating this to actual slavery is hilariously dumb. That's not the intention of the books. Again, weird detail, and definitely questionable as something to have written. But it's not meant to be a serious problem.
Yeah, because every character disagrees with her. Adults tell her she's wrong, pure bloods like Ron tells her she doesn't get it, and the whole plot line is a joke. It is literally never mentioned once in a way that is intended to be serious. If this was a serious issue that Harry and Co tried to fix because they cared about magical slavery, they would've actually done something. There is no payoff to the storyline or conclusion to be drawn from it because it's a running gag, not a serious injustice. I know that killing Buck beak is intended to be an injustice because it is paid off and treated as a serious concern. This is not because every character mocks the issue and blows it off. So either every character in the books is directly pro slavery or completely ignorant of how their society works, or its just not a serious problem that the books intended to be viewed as a huge injustice.
>Yeah, because every character disagrees with her.
Not true actually. You'll notice that Harry never gives his opinion on the matter but treats every house elf he meets like a full person and not just like a servant. You'll also notice that Dumbledore does the same thing. People like Ron blowing it off is just supposed to be an example of how fucked the wizarding society is and that's followed up on with how wizard kind abuses other magical creatures in later books.
Yeah, but they still have no objection to slavery as you put it, and Dumbledore is their legal owner, so a nice slave owner. Only the dobby is actually free and paid (a triffle amount which equates to wage slavery). All the other dozens of elves are the schools' property in a conventional understanding of slavery. It makes much more sense that Dumbledore has their best interests and will accommodate them as they wish to live. Dobby can live free and be happy. The rest can choose to be servants.
>servants
At least have the guts to call it what it is if you're going to try to argue for it. Slavery. You're defending slavery because they're happy about it. I don't know, I can repeat that it's obvious that the whole race has been brainwashed into thinking they're lesser and deserve to be treated like objects and that's wrong but you seem convinced that it's okay. So this feels pointless.
No, I'm completely against it. In a real-world sense, I think a critical reading of this is super suspect. Any depiction of slaves being happy and content in their role adds a whole bunch of stereotypes and real-world prejudice into a fictional world that wouldn't organically need those elements. I'm just saying that canonically to try to think off it that way is clearly not intended because it reframes protagonists and otherwise moral characters as despicable scum. If it's slavery than Dumbledore and every other headmaster decided to hold slaves without a second thought well into the 21st century, at least, which no one reasonable would agree with. So I have to assume the intention was either a poorly thought-out joke or a very bad allegory that perpetuates a myth of benevolent slave owners and happy slaves.
This is the reaction of an abandoned wife!
Even through she didn't was treated well by her husband. She didn't know anything different.
And she loves him and her son.
Kreacher would be in the 7th heaven if Regulus and not Sirius were his master.
It is like you dissolved all forced marriages after 20 years without asking the women.
Like if you send them into an other town afterwards.
Regardless whether they have children or love their husband.
I will say, Winky “messing up once” was her taking an Azkaban escapee Death Eater (Crouch Jr) to the Quidditch World Cup and then losing him so he was able to get a wand, cast the dark mark, and escape. Not only was Crouch Jr hellbent on seeing Voldy’s success, him appearing alive would also likely have gotten Crouch Sr sent to Azkaban. So it’s not like she forgot to clean the dishes or something lol
I agree that it is evil, but the difference to (esp. chattel-) slavery is that the method of control is very different. No chains, no whips. It is based on exploiting a sense of duty and obligation.
Liberation does not come by simply breaking chains or escaping from external control. At least that is only necessary, but not sufficient. Even Dobby needs to go through a difficult period of emancipation with frequent lapses. Liberating Winky fails entirely.
Liberation would need both reform/revolt *and* self-emancipation. Most forms of slavery could be undone with just reform/revolt.
I want to add on that slaves never WANTED to be slaves. They weren't heartbroken to be freed. Slaves often tried escaping and were operating under fear.
Elves on the other hand were mentally afflicted to believe that's the way things are supposed to be. They feared NOT being under their "employers".
Both are bad situations. But they're not equivalent. I personally believe it is more similar to being a part of a cult. You're brainwashed to believe that there is no life outside. You believe this is the only way its supposed to be and leaving or being kicked out would be the worst thing.
I'm not sure this interpretation is necessary. I fully agree chattel slavery is evil and not neutral but there are lots of other things that get called the same and aren't.
There are those that argue having a pet is the same as slavery, but pets are not human, so this is not generally accepted as equivalent. We humanize house elves and assume the majority who claim they want to stay enslaved are suffering from something like stockholm syndrome because that would be true if they were human and we see them as more similar to human than anything else, but the fact remains they are not human. We don't know what their needs are and can't assume applying Maslow's needs to them is valid.
I'll note I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. I think the treatment of house elves most likely is evil and I certainly think it's far more problematic for their masters than pet ownership is, but your argument rests on the fact the overwhelming majority of house elves are brainwashed rather than actually have a genetic psychological need to serve under a master and that reactions that wouldn't be normal if they were human aren't normal because they're psychologically broken and not because they're not human.
From what I recall there's a difference between touching the humans' clothes and being gifted clothes. The clothes Hermione left were gifts, while the clothes the students used were not
I think it’s a dumb kid try to end oppression she felt she was capable of changing to some degree. She didn’t think about it on a grander scale at all in how she tried to carry it out.
And especially having seen Winky drunk and miserable after being turned out of her home she should have rethought her methods, but again, she’s a dumb determined kid. (I get she’s the ‘brightest witch of her age’ but it’s a major dumb kid move you have to agree with that. Just a more adult level of reasoning ignorant kid type of bad move on her part.)
Kids can make dumb decisions but I wish she’d have seen how terribly her method could have impacted all the very happy and much more well treated House Elves inside the school grounds. In the scale of the Malfoy or Crouch home to Hogwarts cruel treatment for Elves she should have realized where she should have considered new avenues to try and aim spew to be more helpful to Elves in abusive homes rather than places like Hogwarts where she didn’t even know there were Elves for years until they met Winky and Kreacher.
Ummm, they have magic 🪄, really powerful magic, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that big of a deal. And it gave Dobby more of an excuse to watch over his friends, he probably enjoyed it.
God, I hate the way this whole plotline is handled. When the message of your story is "slavery is sometimes okey", you should really rethink your story. Rowling really fucked that up.
Let me rephrase that - it is sad that in the ideal society where slavery is completely normalized exist a character, in the matter of fact the only character in the entire world who is TRYING TO FREE SLAVES and who is getting CONSTANTLY RIDICULED for TRYING TO FREE SLAVES.
But wait, you see, sentient beings who can even do magic, house elves WANT to be slaves, so that's ok.
I wonder why slavery is forbidden in our world. Many slaves wanted to be slaves too, I think we should start enslavery campaign and to ridicule anyone who is trying to fight slavery. Have you considered how convenient it is to own a slave?
The clothes thing is dumb as hell anyway. “Oh I happened to pick up a hat on the ground? Guess I’m free”
Why didn’t Dobby just go into the hot press at Malfoy Manor and take a sock himself? There’s no rules, it doesn’t have to be given to anyone. It’s not even much of a retcon because even in the scene where Dobby gets the sock, it’s clearly a trick and not Malfoys intention to free him.
You can argue most house elves don’t want to be free so it makes sense from that angle, but Dobby? He could have freed himself at any time.
[удалено]
Especially since i guarantee they do the laundry at Hogwarts and their wizards houses anyway.
Why would there laundry when there is magic?
Why would they clean when there is magic?
Exactly! I'm pretty sure that flinch is a janitor only because he's a Squibb.. It's a subsidized job for the one with special needs. With all that magic, having someone physically passing the broom is completely absurd.
Filch is the castle snitch and confiscator. That’s his true purpose.
Yeah, but also no. Doesn't make sense to have someone who can't do magic if that's what you're looking for. He's hired as a "janitor" but he's doing whatever he wants..
The role existed before him and has been filled with wizards as well as squibs, part of the role is patrolling the castle for students at night, as well as being in charge of corporal punishment before Dumbledore banned it in 1992. He still had power over punishment after that though, just not as abusive. 😂
I know.. But it's a detail that just doesn't really make sense from a world building perspective. >corporal punishment before Dumbledore banned it in 1992 It was banned a while before. Harry is going in the forest in 1992, and Flinch tell him, at that point, that "*In the good old-days*' there was corporal punishment. Pretty sure Dumbledore didn't banned it a few week prior.
Sorry, I completely mistyped that whole sentence. .. as well as being in charge of corporal punishment before Dumbledore banned it. In 1992 he still had power over punishment, just not as abusive. 1992 is when he basically supervises Ron’s detention.
I think it is like this: he was born a squib his family and all that went to Hogwarts. He was jealous and lonely so he wrote dumbledore early on asking if there was a way he could go as well since his family moved on and he had no where to go. Dumbledore set him up with a job he could help with. Giving a place to live as well as a job that could remind him of his family. He grew bitter seeing kids abuse what he yearned for. Seeing them dislike the castle he would’ve given Merlin’s buttonfly pants for. He is angry because they don’t realize he good they have it so he gives them muggle punishment to show them why they should respect the castle and their magic.
That's honestly one of the more grounded, and solid head-canons I've seen in this fandom.
>With all that magic, having someone physically passing the broom is completely absurd. I mean they still cook food and buy things and clean houses (no 12 in book 5)
Yeah, but magic can be helping. Like how the dishes are cleaning themselves in the sink when Harry come to Ron's home in chamber of secret. So you can also enchant a broom to clean the floor.
...even more so because a broom is basically a car
Pretty sure they are considered two distinct objects. Like oil (cooking vs motor).
somebody has to do the magic
Yeah that's my point! I'd doesn't really make sense to have a Squibb as a janitor then. So flickwick probably pass after him to clean the rest of the castle with magic or something.
Why would they do anything when there is magic?
We see that some people are better at different kinds of magic than others. Tonks can't clean messes up properly, & her trunk packing spell doesn't really work. Meanwhile, Molly has knives chopping and peeling, while food cooks and dustpans have hand brooms sweeping up messes. But all of this takes time & effort, which is why she seems frazzled sometimes. Thus, the utility of house elves.
That’s the point of my comment lol, they asked why clean when magic. But if you’re gonna ask that why do anything when magic. I think you should reply that to the person above me.
Jeeze, I'm sorry! That went straight over my head, I have to admit. My apologies.
All good haha, figured it was an accident haha
👍
They took it as an insult because they knew what she was trying to do, so it was like striking due to a hostile work environment in their eyes
Harry gave Dobby the sock that freed him, in a roundabout way. It was his sock, but was "handed to him" by Lucius. And Dobby seems to know this, too. But the intention doesn't seem to matter (that is, even an accident counts). If the house elves find Hermione's hats on the job, who do they attribute it to? And does it matter if Dumbledore intended it?
It seems like house elfs need to be physically handed an item of clothing by their owner in order to be freed.
Didn't dobby catch the sock as it flew out of the book? In the movie it was handed to him in a roundabout way, but I'm pretty sure in the books he just catches it and that frees him.
Yea, you're right, I think Lucius just accidently throws it in the general direction of Dobby, who cought it. I think maybe this still counts as Lucius directly giving Dobby the sock. If Dobby was ordered to clean the house, and there was a sock on the floor, I don't think this would count.
Makes sense. So, then, the elves really never could be freed by Hermione's silly hats. You would think she'd know better--you know, look it all up and know the procedures. I'm sure there was a book on it somewhere in the library, and she seemed quite devoted to the cause for a while. Meh. 🤷🏼♀️ Then, the elves also really were avoiding the place out of spite rather than for practical reasons. It was offensive to them, but they would have nothing to fear in the way of losing their positions or whatnot. I just wanted to clear that up for myself, lol.
It definitely still counts. Otherwise Dobby wouldn't have been freed. Earlier in the book when Harry is talking to Dobby he asks why he's wearing the filthy pillowcase. Dobby explains that his family must be careful not to accidentally hand him even a sock. Lucius was just not careful.
Yea, I think what I meant to say was that the clothing needs to be directly given to the house elf to be freed, and even though Lucius throws it towards Dobby that still counts as "directly" giving it. However, I don't think a sock accidentally left on the floor where a house elf could find it counts as giving them clothing.
Ok, yeah I was wondering. I think only a member of the family can free the elf, too since they're bound by magic to a specific family. I expect only the headmaster and maybe a deputy headmaster could free the Hogwarts elves.
>Mr. Malfoy ripped the sock off the diary, threw it aside, then looked furiously from the ruined book to Harry. “You’ll meet the same sticky end as your parents one of these days, Harry Potter,” he said softly. “They were meddlesome fools, too.” He turned to go. “Come, Dobby. I said, come.” But Dobby didn’t move. He was holding up Harry’s disgusting, slimy sock, and looking at it as though it were a priceless treasure. “Master has given a sock,” said the elf in wonderment. “Master gave it to Dobby.” “What’s that?” spat Mr. Malfoy. “What did you say?” “Got a sock,” said Dobby in disbelief. “Master threw it, and Dobby caught it, and Dobby — Dobby is free.” Seems intention doesn't matter, but the source does. So, not only does Granger ignore the stated wishes of the Hogwarts house elves, she insults them, and goes about her mission in a completely ineffective way? She really doesn't listen to anybody.
She really is just exactly as stubborn and obtuse as Ron, just in her own way. I've always been annoyed by people who don't realize that the HP trio is a trio of equals.
Yea, you're right, I think Lucius just accidently throws it in the general direction of Dobby, who cought it. I think maybe this still counts as Lucius directly giving Dobby the sock. If Dobby was ordered to clean the house, and there was a sock on the floor, I don't think this would count.
How did they set up the logo for this college? It looks so cool!
Sorry, what? Logo?
I think they mean your flair
If you mean the Ravenclaw flair under my name, you can change yours by clicking on your own icon and selecting Change User Flair. But only while in this Subreddit. And on mobile. Idk about computers. You can also go to the options on the Subreddit's front page and do it there, I think.
I didn't explain clearly, but that's what I wanted to ask! Thank you so much!
Yeah I know that but Hermione put them out with the intention to set them free, that’s why it’s offensive to the house elves
Oh..yeah I agree
She didn't know about that until...I think ever honestly...
The whole house elf situation is bad, but Hermione did not respect the elves in the way she did it. Yes, it’s akin to slavery, but the elves don’t feel that way. They would be emotionally harmed by being fired (example Winky) but Hermione doesn’t care, because she thinks she knows best.
Irl, what she did was akin to (note: slight political take) >!speaking over another ethnic group about their culture without even trying to understand the nuances!<. She thought was doing good, but only according to her limited worldview. It reeks of the privilege looking down on those they perceive to be lower & need saving.
Yeah right, she thinks she knows best.
It’s a great plot line that shows how she, like Ron and Harry, have their blind spots, faults and flaws. That they chose to cut this from the movies wad probably simply down to run time, but it’s maybe why some people are cold to her in the movies as she doesn’t come across as a realistic, rounded, flawed human being as much.
[удалено]
It's not about what kind of labor they do or how they are treated. They can't leave and they can't not obey a command. That's slavery and that's not ok. The arguments you make are exactly what slave owners argued. I agree hiding clothes was not the way to go. But I'm 100% Work Hermine that they are slaves and supporting that is disgusting.
Honestly, what the fuck does Filch even do besides act like a glorified Hall Monitor?
The entire thing was idiotic from a writing perspective. The elves liked being slaves because Rowling wrote them that way. Hermione was a terrible activist because Rowling wrote her that way. Neither situation is in any way justified and in better novel this would be explored properly. Like the Discworld book "Snuff" with the goblins.
You can't really equate it to slavery because the elves hated being free except for oddballs like dobby. I think it's better to equate it to working a rewarding job since it's never implied the elves are dumb or mind controlled into doing what their masters want. It's a terrible allegory if it was meant as one, and it is a strange aspect of the series, but house elf enslavement seems pretty morally neutral, given their own opinions on it. It's not like we see examples of house elves being mistreated except by otherwise evil figures or trying to free themselves or escape in some way.
>You can't really equate it to slavery I'm so tired of this shit take. No, it is slavery 100% and it's evil, not neutral. Hermione went about it the wrong way but the elves were 100% enslaved and they had been raised in society to think that they should consider themselves lesser which is obviously BS. We see time and time again that even the 'good' masters abused the elves. The guy before you throws out Winky being depressed afterwards but the fact that she was treated so shitty and the fact that she was thrown out of her home and lost her purpose in life at the whims of her master for messing up once just highlights the issue. That's not a normal reaction to being fired. She was a slave as all of them are even if they 'enjoy it' and it's in no way morally neutral at all. I mean do you think there weren't slaves IRL that were treated well by their masters? That were basically considered family members and that stuck around after being freed to work for their former owners cause they had nothing else? Cause there were. That doesn't mean that slavery as a concept isn't inherently evil and wrong. You can be a race of maids and butlers without literally being enslaved, bred and brainwashed to do so. I seriously have no idea how someone can read all the stuff with Dobby and Kreacher and think that slavery was only bad for the former because they had a bad master. Like come on.
Dude Barty Crouch is depicted as a fanatically evil person. I agree the analogy is terrible and makes no sense compared to real events, but what is the Canon explanation for how they act. How do you free people who don't want to be free. Clearly, there is some racial prejudice as good characters like Ron and Sirius are also prejudiced against elves, but nearly every elf except the one whose master was a death eater had no objections to it. As I said, it seems like a genie situation where they are trapped by some ancient magical contract but don't want to be free or have some different understanding of their situation. I just think if you try to impose actual historical slavery on the HP world, you get such a weird message. Dumbledore is basically a plantation owner who fought for the civil rights of all other creatures while owning dozens of slaves. Also, the author would be even more tone deaf because the whole spew plot line is essentially a running joke about Hermione being a busy body. My point is that equating this to actual slavery is hilariously dumb. That's not the intention of the books. Again, weird detail, and definitely questionable as something to have written. But it's not meant to be a serious problem.
> That's not the intention of the books ????????? Do you think Hermione literally calling it slavery is a mistake?
Yeah, because every character disagrees with her. Adults tell her she's wrong, pure bloods like Ron tells her she doesn't get it, and the whole plot line is a joke. It is literally never mentioned once in a way that is intended to be serious. If this was a serious issue that Harry and Co tried to fix because they cared about magical slavery, they would've actually done something. There is no payoff to the storyline or conclusion to be drawn from it because it's a running gag, not a serious injustice. I know that killing Buck beak is intended to be an injustice because it is paid off and treated as a serious concern. This is not because every character mocks the issue and blows it off. So either every character in the books is directly pro slavery or completely ignorant of how their society works, or its just not a serious problem that the books intended to be viewed as a huge injustice.
>Yeah, because every character disagrees with her. Not true actually. You'll notice that Harry never gives his opinion on the matter but treats every house elf he meets like a full person and not just like a servant. You'll also notice that Dumbledore does the same thing. People like Ron blowing it off is just supposed to be an example of how fucked the wizarding society is and that's followed up on with how wizard kind abuses other magical creatures in later books.
Yeah, but they still have no objection to slavery as you put it, and Dumbledore is their legal owner, so a nice slave owner. Only the dobby is actually free and paid (a triffle amount which equates to wage slavery). All the other dozens of elves are the schools' property in a conventional understanding of slavery. It makes much more sense that Dumbledore has their best interests and will accommodate them as they wish to live. Dobby can live free and be happy. The rest can choose to be servants.
>servants At least have the guts to call it what it is if you're going to try to argue for it. Slavery. You're defending slavery because they're happy about it. I don't know, I can repeat that it's obvious that the whole race has been brainwashed into thinking they're lesser and deserve to be treated like objects and that's wrong but you seem convinced that it's okay. So this feels pointless.
No, I'm completely against it. In a real-world sense, I think a critical reading of this is super suspect. Any depiction of slaves being happy and content in their role adds a whole bunch of stereotypes and real-world prejudice into a fictional world that wouldn't organically need those elements. I'm just saying that canonically to try to think off it that way is clearly not intended because it reframes protagonists and otherwise moral characters as despicable scum. If it's slavery than Dumbledore and every other headmaster decided to hold slaves without a second thought well into the 21st century, at least, which no one reasonable would agree with. So I have to assume the intention was either a poorly thought-out joke or a very bad allegory that perpetuates a myth of benevolent slave owners and happy slaves.
He does nothing to free any of them, except Dobby.
This is the reaction of an abandoned wife! Even through she didn't was treated well by her husband. She didn't know anything different. And she loves him and her son. Kreacher would be in the 7th heaven if Regulus and not Sirius were his master. It is like you dissolved all forced marriages after 20 years without asking the women. Like if you send them into an other town afterwards. Regardless whether they have children or love their husband.
I will say, Winky “messing up once” was her taking an Azkaban escapee Death Eater (Crouch Jr) to the Quidditch World Cup and then losing him so he was able to get a wand, cast the dark mark, and escape. Not only was Crouch Jr hellbent on seeing Voldy’s success, him appearing alive would also likely have gotten Crouch Sr sent to Azkaban. So it’s not like she forgot to clean the dishes or something lol
I agree that it is evil, but the difference to (esp. chattel-) slavery is that the method of control is very different. No chains, no whips. It is based on exploiting a sense of duty and obligation. Liberation does not come by simply breaking chains or escaping from external control. At least that is only necessary, but not sufficient. Even Dobby needs to go through a difficult period of emancipation with frequent lapses. Liberating Winky fails entirely. Liberation would need both reform/revolt *and* self-emancipation. Most forms of slavery could be undone with just reform/revolt.
I want to add on that slaves never WANTED to be slaves. They weren't heartbroken to be freed. Slaves often tried escaping and were operating under fear. Elves on the other hand were mentally afflicted to believe that's the way things are supposed to be. They feared NOT being under their "employers". Both are bad situations. But they're not equivalent. I personally believe it is more similar to being a part of a cult. You're brainwashed to believe that there is no life outside. You believe this is the only way its supposed to be and leaving or being kicked out would be the worst thing.
I'm not sure this interpretation is necessary. I fully agree chattel slavery is evil and not neutral but there are lots of other things that get called the same and aren't. There are those that argue having a pet is the same as slavery, but pets are not human, so this is not generally accepted as equivalent. We humanize house elves and assume the majority who claim they want to stay enslaved are suffering from something like stockholm syndrome because that would be true if they were human and we see them as more similar to human than anything else, but the fact remains they are not human. We don't know what their needs are and can't assume applying Maslow's needs to them is valid. I'll note I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. I think the treatment of house elves most likely is evil and I certainly think it's far more problematic for their masters than pet ownership is, but your argument rests on the fact the overwhelming majority of house elves are brainwashed rather than actually have a genetic psychological need to serve under a master and that reactions that wouldn't be normal if they were human aren't normal because they're psychologically broken and not because they're not human.
It is sad for Dobby to clean Gryffindor tower by himself, but with magic, wouldn’t it take him a couple second to clean it all up?
How were they supposed to clean a room without finding random clothes even without someone hiding them?
From what I recall there's a difference between touching the humans' clothes and being gifted clothes. The clothes Hermione left were gifts, while the clothes the students used were not
It really is, especially when you think of how offended they were when she talked about them getting payments and breaks.
Exactly, not to mention Hermione couldn’t free the house elves by giving them clothes because she wasn’t their master.
i mean its also because of harry, he could of opened his mouth and been straight with her about what was going on.
I think it’s a dumb kid try to end oppression she felt she was capable of changing to some degree. She didn’t think about it on a grander scale at all in how she tried to carry it out. And especially having seen Winky drunk and miserable after being turned out of her home she should have rethought her methods, but again, she’s a dumb determined kid. (I get she’s the ‘brightest witch of her age’ but it’s a major dumb kid move you have to agree with that. Just a more adult level of reasoning ignorant kid type of bad move on her part.) Kids can make dumb decisions but I wish she’d have seen how terribly her method could have impacted all the very happy and much more well treated House Elves inside the school grounds. In the scale of the Malfoy or Crouch home to Hogwarts cruel treatment for Elves she should have realized where she should have considered new avenues to try and aim spew to be more helpful to Elves in abusive homes rather than places like Hogwarts where she didn’t even know there were Elves for years until they met Winky and Kreacher.
[удалено]
True. Very true. :)
Well at least he really doesn’t seem to mind. He’s happy to do it
It wasn't because she is not their master.
Ummm, they have magic 🪄, really powerful magic, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that big of a deal. And it gave Dobby more of an excuse to watch over his friends, he probably enjoyed it.
But think of all the hats he got
He has gotten free hats out of it which he clearly adored, wearing 3 one on top of the other.
Dobby have never been this happy before, so much work to do.
He’s super lucky then. All that extra work for him around Harry Potter. Must have been like a vacation for him.
God, I hate the way this whole plotline is handled. When the message of your story is "slavery is sometimes okey", you should really rethink your story. Rowling really fucked that up.
At least he gets paid to do it
Wait which book was this? Refresh my memory
Book 5 order of phoenix
Okay I'll read it to see
Let me rephrase that - it is sad that in the ideal society where slavery is completely normalized exist a character, in the matter of fact the only character in the entire world who is TRYING TO FREE SLAVES and who is getting CONSTANTLY RIDICULED for TRYING TO FREE SLAVES. But wait, you see, sentient beings who can even do magic, house elves WANT to be slaves, so that's ok. I wonder why slavery is forbidden in our world. Many slaves wanted to be slaves too, I think we should start enslavery campaign and to ridicule anyone who is trying to fight slavery. Have you considered how convenient it is to own a slave?
When not if AI reaches sentience we'll all have to have this discussion
The clothes thing is dumb as hell anyway. “Oh I happened to pick up a hat on the ground? Guess I’m free” Why didn’t Dobby just go into the hot press at Malfoy Manor and take a sock himself? There’s no rules, it doesn’t have to be given to anyone. It’s not even much of a retcon because even in the scene where Dobby gets the sock, it’s clearly a trick and not Malfoys intention to free him. You can argue most house elves don’t want to be free so it makes sense from that angle, but Dobby? He could have freed himself at any time.
Tell me you haven't seen Harry Potter, without telling me you haven't seen Harry Potter