Free Kreacher!, Why Not? |
 Sep 18 2007, 09:32 PM
Post
#21
|
|
Shopping for a New Firebolt  Posts: 834 Joined: 4:42pm May 10, 2007 Location: Lost in my books and in this imagination of mine   |
Some elves are happy working for families or Hogwarts and they clearly showed they did not want to be freed when they stopped cleaning Gryffindor Tower because Hermione kept leaving her bladder looking hats. I doubt Kreacher would want to be freed specially since he likes Harry now.
--------------------  YES! GIVE IT TO HIM, IT'S OBVIOUS HE DESERVES IT!! thanks to kendra.dumbledore for the wonderful avatar and siggy! |
 |
 
 
|
|
Sep 19 2007, 01:47 AM
Post
#22
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 17 Joined: 4:41am September 17, 2007 Location: Flourish and Blotts - reading Hogwarts: A History |
You know, I'd say most elves find it their duty to serve wizards, no matter how foul they are. look at Dobby when Harry is perfectly civil to him in Chamber of Secrets-he gets asked to sit down. He acts like it's an invitation to become Minister for Magic! And he wants tro work in the Hogwarts kitchens all day and all night instead of going off and doing his own thing.
And kreacher-he certainly doesn't want to be freed any time in the duration of this millenium. he lives to serve his Mistress Black, and "Miss Bella" and "Miss Cissy" - and somehow I don't think Harry is going to try to free Kreacher any time soon |
|
|
|
|
Sep 19 2007, 07:20 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's Posts: 2,977 Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007 |
This discussion is one of the reasons I choose to see Kreacher's story as an allegory of the enslavement of the soul, or the darkness of blind obedience or faith--rather than comparable to the actual institution of slavery as it has existed in the real world. Taken at face value, we find a strange mixture of harsh judgement against and casual enabling of what we have come to accept as the immoral institution of slavery in Kreacher's tale.
Service as a vocation is an honorable choice of profession. But slavery as an institution or social practice is immoral. Therefore Harry in freeing Kreacher does the right thing whether Kreacher wants freedom or not. Freeing Kreacher should not be a matter of Harry deciding whether or not the elf "wants" to be free. That is the lesson in the gospel when slaves are told to return to masters, or turn the other cheek. Of course if the master is not a just and ethical person, turning the other cheek or returning is not a wise recommendation. However, as a just and ethical man, Harry should realize that as thinking individual, given free will by providence or the creator, Dobby deserves to be free. Harry has no right to hold Kreacher to blind obedience to what Harry understands is a flawed, if not immoral set of traditions. Saying that it is permissible to keep someone a slave is like saying it is permissible for an adult to continue to violate a child because the child will be broken hearted and homeless if he is separated from the abusive adult. Sirius listening to Dumbledore and keeping Kreacher a slave, whether he treated Kreacher with respect as a servant was not, in my opinion, the best way to approach this story--as choosing facial mutilation to punish the traitor Marietta was a bit ill advised. The only right thing for Sirius to have done, no matter what Kreacher threatened was to free him, because Jo establishes that even though it was a long held tradition, enslavement of elves as a people was immoral. If enslavement in itself is immoral, then it is immoral to keep an elf a slave whether or the master treats the servant kindly or not. Sirius should and could have offered Kreacher freedom not as a punishment, but as a 'reward" for his faithful service to his family. He could and should have offered Kreacher any boon --say a certain locket, or his Father's pants to snog--as a reward for his service, as well as a home forever at Grimmuald Place as a free elf. Of course, had Jo written this Jo couldn't have had Hermione say Sirius got what he deserved because he was unkind to Kreacher. But there is a certain hypocrisy in this conclusion, because the only right and kind thing Sirius should and could have done for the "slave" he inherited from his mother was to free Kreacher, and compensate him for his long years of service with an offer of shelter and whatever payment was fair. The problem in this scenario is the glaring difference between Jo's decision to show the elves as a group of individuals who as a group do not desire, and the real conditions of slaves in England and the USA, who once they discovered "freedom" was possible other than working it off, buying yourself and your family, or a costly rebellion desired to be free people. Again: we can't read Uncle Tom's Cabin and decide this gives us the whole picture slavery. Read Douglas's praise and criticism of the book. Why would a person who was born in a country, and whose parents, grand parents and probably great grand parents were born in one country want to go back to unknown continent simply because there were more people of his complexion in this unknown world? In Stowe's defense we must remember she wrote this novel after key events in the USA history like the Seminole Indian Wars, where many runaway and freed slaves fought on the side of the Seminoles, the Nat Turner and other lesser known slave rebellions, and the Dred Scott decision. Each of these events served to push many white male voters who straddled the slavery fence to oppose mass emaciation and strengthen discriminatory laws --like making it illegal to acknowledge so-called mixed marriages, or refusing legitimacy or inheritance to child of white and black parentage. There were laws forbidding slaves to buy or work for their freedom which had always been in place in the states when they were British colony. Of course Black people who for the most part wanted to stay in the US could go into French or Spanish territories, or Canada, which to many people of property made them a potential threat as the US government was very committed to the idea of extending the borders of the USA from sea to shining sea. Jo couldn't get all these layers into her book, so she deals with the matter of slavery very simply, but the simplicity seems to have lead to a very confusing message. Slavery is wrong unless the individual loves bondage is a confusing message. What did I find wrong with Spew? 1.) Hermione didn't acknowledge the elves as individuals. 2.) She doesn't acknowledge that Dobby , the freed elf, was already speaking to his fellow elves about working for wages, having free will, and the rights allowed any sentient living being. It was not her call to decide that because Winky didn't seem inspired, that Dobby was not making headway with them. 3.) Hermione was a fifteen year old Muggle born girl. She doesn't have a pile of gold in Gringotts; she doesn't own a factory. She most certainly could not offer all of these elves she extended freedom to food, shelter, compensation for the work they had already done, or employment--which they would need and deserved. Even if the elves wanted to go "home , after thousands of years--where was their home? Her actions, especially as she did not first consult their kindly and wise Master--Professor Dumbledore--was irresponsible. Even Stowe was part of the underground Railroad--a group of people willing to give refuge and shelter to slaves, even buy them if necessary. The Abolitionist worked hard to assimilate Black people as productive citizens into the US society, helping them get into schools or uses skills to open small business, or working against discrimination in employment. This post has been edited by Maime the Hunter: Sep 19 2007, 07:23 PM |
|
|
|
|
Sep 20 2007, 07:00 AM
Post
#24
|
|
Personal Secretary to The Minister of Magic  Posts: 9,192 Joined: 4:57am January 28, 2005 Location: near Muggleswick, UK |
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ Sep 20 2007, 01:20 AM)  Service as a vocation is an honorable choice of profession. But slavery as an institution or social practice is immoral. Therefore Harry in freeing Kreacher does the right thing whether Kreacher wants freedom or not. But that is basically what Hermione was trying to do with the hats, trying to force freedom on the house elves even though they didn't want it. And as we saw with Winky, house elves may not cope well with being free. Freeing Kreacher may seem like a good idea, but could actually be counter-productive and make life worse for Kreacher, not better. The wizard-house elf relationship is actually two-way, with the house elf providing service and the wizarding family providing a home, care and security for the house elf (and I am thinking security in the sense of a parent provides security for a child so that the child feels safe). So the first stage to reforming the house elf situation is to stop the worst abuse of house elves and make wizarding families realize their responsibilities towards them (which I imagine was what Hermione was doing in the Ministry), and also providing support for any house elves that do choose to be free (or like Winky are forced into it) to place them with a new family or replace the security that being part of a family provided. But I do see it as a long term process and at the end of it house elves may still choose to be bound to a family.
This post has been edited by roonwit: Sep 20 2007, 11:12 AM --------------------  W.L.Y.J. We love you Jo |
|
|
|
|
Sep 20 2007, 10:11 AM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's Posts: 2,977 Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007 |
QUOTE But that is basically what Hermione was trying to do with the hats, trying to force freedom or the house elves even though they didn't want it. No it isn't the same thing at all. You can't trick anyone to accept freedom, especially if you are neither willing or prepared to help the person with the consequences of the choice you made for them.The Elves were not Hermione's alone to set free, they belonged to Dumbledore or Hogwarts. If she truly cared about the elves welfare more than her sense of righteous, the responsible thing to do would have been to approach Dobby, or all the Gryffindor elves themselves, McGonagall, Dumbledore with what she felt was the right thing. The elves are certainly more adult than a a child but say you saw a small child sitting in a hot car, suffucating, but the door was unlocked or you could get the door locked. After the child is rescued, do you walk away, patting yourself on the back for having done your good deed, leaving the child to goodness knows what other danger in the parking lot? But this is what Hermione has done with SPEW. She left the hats, but was she there to offer them employment or shelter or a representative voice to go wizards? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 20 2007, 10:55 AM
Post
#26
|
|
Director of Farcical Aquatic Ceremonies  Posts: 8,971 Joined: 2:55pm January 28, 2005 Location: Classified, until such time as the Ministry sees fit to release it. |
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ Sep 20 2007, 11:11 AM) QUOTE But that is basically what Hermione was trying to do with the hats, trying to force freedom or the house elves even though they didn't want it. No it isn't the same thing at all. You can't trick anyone to accept freedom, especially if you are neither willing or prepared to help the person with the consequences of the choice you made for them.The Elves were not Hermione's alone to set free, they belonged to Dumbledore or Hogwarts. If she truly cared about the elves welfare more than her sense of righteous, the responsible thing to do would have been to approach Dobby, or all the Gryffindor elves themselves, McGonagall, Dumbledore with what she felt was the right thing. The elves are certainly more adult than a a child but say you saw a small child sitting in a hot car, suffucating, but the door was unlocked or you could get the door locked. After the child is rescued, do you walk away, patting yourself on the back for having done your good deed, leaving the child to goodness knows what other danger in the parking lot? But this is what Hermione has done with SPEW. She left the hats, but was she there to offer them employment or shelter or a representative voice to go wizards? Since some discussion has popped up about Hermione and her SPEW efforts, I thought some of the newer members might like to check out this poll about Hermione's "freedom hat" campaign.  You guys are, of course, welcome to continue your discussion of house elves and freedom in this thread.  Pleione LL Moderator |
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2007, 04:00 PM
Post
#27
|
|
Buying a Half-Kneazle Posts: 507 Joined: 1:14pm April 9, 2007 Location: At the weasleys wizarding wheezes drooling over the wonderwitch products. |
QUOTE The Elves were not Hermione's alone to set free, they belonged to Dumbledore or Hogwarts. If she truly cared about the elves welfare more than her sense of righteous, the responsible thing to do would have been to approach Dobby, or all the Gryffindor elves themselves, McGonagall, Dumbledore with what she felt was the right thing. The elves are certainly more adult than a a child but say you saw a small child sitting in a hot car, suffucating, but the door was unlocked or you could get the door locked. After the child is rescued, do you walk away, patting yourself on the back for having done your good deed, leaving the child to goodness knows what other danger in the parking lot? But this is what Hermione has done with SPEW. She left the hats, but was she there to offer them employment or shelter or a representative voice to go wizards? Id agree with you maime the hunter.Hermione was a bit carried away by her ambitious campaigning.Ofcourse she meant well.Intelligent as she may be,this particular act reflected her age and the inability to think outside the box,something which people like dumbledore where good at.Hermione is hell bent on freeing kreacher,and would have had kreacher not been privy of the order secrets.But she doesnt realise that freedom doesnt suit everyone equally,especially an aged house elf,who has led his whole life working for wizards.Kreachers attitude could also partly be associated with his treatment by the blacks.Dobby seemed eager to be freed because of the torture he suffered from the malfoys.It opened his eyes to the wonders of freedom in which he wouldnt have to slave under abusive wizards.But from canon we know the blacks treated kreacher fairly well and he thus never needed any kind of freedom.I doubt sirius's statement "you try telling him hes free and see how he takes it".I wonder whether kreacher would have rejected clothes outright considering how eager he was to escape sirius,since he was particularly nasty to him.But now that he has begun to like harry,i doubt whether he would want to leave him and i think hermione should just let him remain under harry where he is obviously happy. --------------------   "We're all still here,we're still fighting.Come on now"-Luna Proud member of W.O.W.S. (Women Obsessed With Snape) Thanks to theonlysong & frodobolson72 for avatar and fanart . |
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2007, 09:41 AM
Post
#28
|
|
Professional Diagon Alley Window Shopper Posts: 66 Joined: 6:02am September 22, 2007 Location: Drowning my sorrows in The Three Broomsticks |
Hermione once asked Sirius why they hadn't set Kreacher free, and he said the shock would kill him. I don't know whether that would have happened only while he was living at Grimmauld Place leading a weird life, though.
-------------------- 'I don't think you should be an Auror, Harry,' said Luna unexpectedly. 'They're working from within to bring down the Ministry of Magic using a combination of Dark magic and gum disease.'
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2007, 01:28 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Buying a Half-Kneazle Posts: 542 Joined: 6:05am September 3, 2007 Location: England |
I dont think it really matter his head will soon be up on the wall
-------------------- "Greatness inspires envy, envy engenders spite, spite spawns lies. You must know this, Dumbledore."
- Lord Voldemort "You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!" - Albus dumbledore GOF |
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2007, 01:54 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's Posts: 2,977 Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007 |
QUOTE But now that he has begun to like harry,i doubt whether he would want to leave him and i think hermione should just let him remain under harry where he is obviously happy. What does Kreacher's affection for Harry have to do with Harry realizing it is immoral to hold Kreacher in the house as a slave? Certainly Kreacher's expression of loyalty and affection should be more cause for Harry to free the Elf. Kreacher can continue to live at Grimmuald Place and serve Harry just as loyalty in a cute little butler's suit and tie as a freed servant as he can as bound to some arachaic and immoral tradition. Harry has no problem communicating with Kreacher, he can certainly make Kreacher understand that service freely given is a better way. This is what I mean about Jo's story telling in this matter having conflicting messages. And it is the same as enabling abuse. This post has been edited by Maime the Hunter: Sep 22 2007, 01:57 PM |
|
|
|
