The war is over! Lord Voldemort is dead and the Death Eaters are scrambling for cover. Kreacher no longer has any information for Harry to fear he could take to the dark side, so is there any reason for Harry not to set him free?

Now that Kreacher has come to accept (perhaps even love) his new "master" would he appreciate it if Harry did free him? Would he be willing to work for Harry as a Free Elf, accepting wages, or would he run to Malfoy Mannor to ask to take Dobby's place.

Most house elves don't want to be free, and I suspect Kreacher is with the majority. I do think that Harry would give Kreacher the choice of whether to be free or not, but Kreacher's time with the trio at Grimmauld Place seems to have made him loyal to Harry and he would probably refuse, though I think Harry would give Kreacher permission to act freely in any case, if he hadn't already done so in DH - Kreacher's actions in DH such as going to Hogwarts and leading the house elves suggest he has been allowed a lot of freedom in the way he acts.

I think that the changed we saw in Kreacher will keep him working for Harry and his family. Not all house elves are speaial like Dobby and want to be free and then when freed will only work for money. So maybe Harry asked Kreacher what he wanted and Harry granted his request.

dobby was an 'oddball', and although the household slavery is wrong, i think the shock of releasing them would kill them. its just been programmed into them. maybe with the next generation they can bring them up so they do not have to be tied to a household

I don't think Kreacher wants to be free as Dobby was. Dobby was very much an exception to the rule in terms of house-elf psychology. Although Kreacher is now courteous to Harry and willing to work for him, he still seems to be largely set in his ways. It might not be impossible to "teach an old dog new tricks", but it will be difficult -- assuming that Kreacher even wants to adopt a new way of thinking. Since he appears to be happy as he is, Harry will probably let him be.

Though I do think Harry would make sure that Kreacher had many of the benefits of freedom even if he wasn't actually free (such as permission to come and go freely, permission not to punish himself, permission to take days off and some money from the household budget, and making sure that instructions were requests, not orders).

For what it's worth, which is next to nothing, I'm about to publish the first five chapters or so of a post-war fan fic, and Harry will offer Kreacher lifetime employment if he wants it, but he will present Kreacher with clothes. Neither Ginny nor Harry are the type of people to support slavery, but will make sure Kreacher knows he has lifetime employment available -- that they are not cutting him loose.

Kreacher deserves freedom by virtue of being a living, feeling, thinking being. He has also earned it by finding Mundungus Fletcher and leading the Hogwarts elves!

He would hate being set free, he loves the black houseand wouldnt want to leave

I worry that Kreacher is "institutionalized." What I mean by this is that he would have a hard time coping with freedom. He has never made decisions for himself outside the home, such as what to wear, how to take care of money etc.... I liken this idea to prisoners being set free after years in prision. Many quickly commit another crime to get sent back to the "homelife" they understand and feel comfortable. Think of the character "Brooks" Shawshank Redemption.

That said, I think that Harry and Ginny will discuss this subject with Kreacher. I can't see Harry wanting to be his master, but I can see Harry wanting and asking Kreacher to be his home "servant" with a lifetime contract. Obviously Harry and Ginny will be sensitive to Kreacher's wishes.

I envision Kreacher actually wanting to be free, but only if he can continue to work for Harry. Kreacher has come to like and even respect Harry. I think Kreacher gets a new lease on life and living on for years to come. I'd love to see Kreacher as the nanny for James, Albus and Lily. Maybe Harry and Ginny will also hire Winky to help Kreacher out.

Kreacher obviously now respects Harry and even cares about him. Kreacher would consider it an honor to serve Harry. I can envision Harry asking Kreacher if he wanted freedom, because Harry knows how important it is to let people choose their own life, but I think Kreacher would be horrorstruck to be set free.

i dont think kreacher would want to be free.
he wanted to be decapitated and mounted on a board if you remember?
i dont see why harry would get rid of him either. who wants to do there own washing??

I don't know if we should draw a comparison between Jo's depiction of elf slavery and Slavery as it manifest it self in Europe and American during the years of European Imperialism. However the the illusion that most slaves who had kind and generous masters didn't want to be free is just that, a fantasy.

Slavery as it developed in Europe and America wasn't wrong because some masters were mean, and the slaves don't get paid. There was no war with Africa, people were stolen from their homes. It is true that many of the first African Slaves were indentured servants, the same as many of the first Irish and German citizens, but soon laws became skin color exclusive.

Ancient Slavery started was a way to deal with debt, even petty crimes, or a way to apprentice for a skill like building, or medicine. But traditions are forgotten, twisted, and perverted. The first case of a people enslaved because of ethnic background is of course Israel in Egypt...and it is an anti-slavery story. One of the laws of Moses is for Israel to give refuge to runaway slaves, or to buy slaves they see maltreated and then set them free or allow them to buy their freedom back if they choose.

From the letters written by slaves in the USA, all the slaves wanted freedom, but after putting years of work in land of the USA, seeing first hand the benefits and opportunities offered in the United States they didn't want to take Lincoln's and Jefferson's suggestion and go back to Africa anymore than Irish or German indentured servants wanted to go back to Ireland or Germany.

Slaves, like Thomas Jefferson's slaves, often felt a family tie to the house they served because they were family, making their enslavement a double evil. Slaves who seemed to resist "freedom" were actually resisting what "freedom" in the USA suggested: breaking a (Dred Scott decision) law that could mean extreme punishment or death, banishment, unemployment, homelessness, starvation, giving up their rightful inheritance owed because of their blood ties to land owners, or trying find opportunity and the pursuit of happiness in a hostile community where as freed individuals they suddenly became a visible minority.

Jo touches on the problem of assimilation briefly in GOF, when Winky expresses some concern about Dobby's strange ideas of wanting to get paid, but trust me, from what I've heard of people of my Great-Great-grandparent's time the only concern enslaved people had was having some place to go, work, live, and prosper other than Liberia, not the desire to remain indentured to "good people". If this is what Jo has concluded about slavery, I wonder at her source of information. But it could be that Jo once she tackled the subject of slavery, that it was much too layered a matter for an already cumbersome work so she makes the rapid conclusions, slavery is wrong, unless you are nice to your servants and they don't want freedom.

If if the institution that keeps elves enslaved simply because they are elves is truly wrong, and it is , there should be no question, Harry should free Kreacher and there is nothing to suggest he does not. Harry could easily find a way to free Kreacher and make the elf understand that freedom does not mean he has to leave his home, or live out in the street. He can remain in the home as family, serve because of choice not duty. Harry can tell Kreacher that his wife and he prefer servants who are attired in proper clothing, that it is matter of respect to both parties. Harry can compensate Kreacher for his years of service by giving him a proper room, a salary, vacations, holidays--like he would any paid servant.

I agree that Harry should and probaly will free Kreacher, if for no other reason, Hermione will not give him a minutes peace until he does; however, I am afraid it is not going to be that easy. If Kreacher is like a typical house elf, he is likely to be shocked and insulted if Harry even mentions it.

How should he go about it? Could he just offer him clothes and tell him that he does not have to accept them?

I think Harry is going to have to spend some time talking to Kreacher. Perhaps he could inquire about the heads of Kreacher's ancestors mounted in the hallway (Harry is not going to want to leave them there,) how to give them a proper funeral. He could then tell him about Dobby's funeral and how Dobby liked being a free elf. The last time we saw Dobby and Kreacher together they didn't get along too well, but that was before Kreacher had any respect for Harry.

The worst thing Harry could do would be to free Kreacher because he wants him to be free. If Kreacher would prefer to remain as he is; should he not let him?

Harry could give Kreacher Regulus' old room. I'm sure he would like that.

I said in another thread on house-elves in Magical Theory, House-elves and their magic., How did they come to possess magical power? Were they always slaves? about how house-elvery is similar in some aspects to the role of the servant class in royal palaces and the houses of the aristocracy across Europe, which reached its peak in the 19th century and lasted until the mid-20th century.

Here is what I replied in that thread:

Well the word "house" can also refer to a family line, like the Most Noble House of Black. This has precedent in British history with the Royal Households, which was the company of servants and officials, including ladies-in-waiting who kept the affairs and private lives of the Royal Family in order.

JKR may have been inspired by the use of servants in the big houses of the aristocracy across Europe, that continued until the mid-20th century. Most poor families would have aspired to have been employed among the servant class, with a range of jobs to perform around the house, such as skullery maids, gardeners, footmen, governess and cook. Most young servants would have seen it as a privilege to be promoted to the top roles of butler for men, and housekeeper for women. You can read more at this link.

Anyway sometimes many generations of one family could serve their aristocratic masters, particularly in rural villages and country estates. Perhaps not even having a choice in the matter because they lived as tenants on their master's land. It is in essence an evolution of the medieval feudal system where barons and relatives of the monarchy held dominion over the people in the area surrounding their castles, and peasants and serfs would be obliged to go to war or move land at an instant.

The house-elves might be seen as exclusive and expensive in the wizarding world because they are the preserve of the "aristocracy", or those who see themselves as such. Namely families such as the Blacks, Crouchs and Malfoys. Also there might only now be a small pool of elves with which to choose from. Although there seems to be over a hundred at Hogwarts.

In regards to breeding it is difficult to assess whether house-elves had free reign in this, i.e. they could choose their own partners with which to start families, and their children would work for their master's house, or whether the master's chose a mate for them. I think the most logical way to deduce this would be to look at the House of Black, the ancestors of Kreacher, who as we see are nicely adorned in jars on the landing at Grimmauld Place.

Did the Black Family find a mate for Kreacher's father or mother from another household, or was his mother or father allowed to get to know each other before settling down to have a family? I think it can be assumed that house-elves performed errands like food-shopping at the wizarding market, so they would have had an opportunity to go out of the house and into the wider wizarding world. Perhaps Kreacher's father met his future mate on a rainy day in Diagon Alley?

The origin of house-elves may go far back in history to say Roman times, or Ancient Egypt where they would have been slaves to important wizarding dynasties. Or it may be a bit more recent, say around the time of the founding of Hogwarts when wizards were getting re-established in the British Isles, and the big families, such as the Peverells required servants to run their households. An enterprising elf may have come from abroad looking for money-making opportunites, and so he thought that working errands for a prominent family would do this, but instead after a while their employers became more authoritarian and over time the elf's descendants would have become enslaved and they would deem it their nature to serve their masters, and see it as disloyal not to do so, punishing themselves for their misdemeanors.

I agree with Maime the Hunter that Harry would see it his duty to free Kreacher, or to ask him in the least. A salary for Kreacher if he decides to turn free or to give him more freedom would be appropriate too. Perhaps 1 Galleon a month similar to what Dumbledore paid Dobby at Hogwarts.

But that is exactly the mistake Hermione made with SPEW. Harry shouldn't impose freedom on Kreacher or persuade him into it; that should be Kreacher's free choice and denying him that freedom to choose is no better than the things SPEW stood against. I am sure Harry would offer to free Kreacher, but Kreacher, like most house elves, would refuse, so Harry would make sure that he Kreacher was in effect free in any case in how he was treated and in what he was allowed to do.

Actually, Hermione's mistake was in thinking she knew what the elves wanted, whatever they might say. The fact is, we don't know what Kreacher wants, we're geussing. This is why I think Harry has to spend some time talking, and listening, to Kreacher, to find out what he wants. If Harry was to tell Kreacher that he would like him to continue working for him but would also like him to wear proper clothes, that might work. As Kreacher told Harry. "the house-elf's highest law is his master's bidding."

If S.P.E.W. is to continue post war, I think it needs to change its focus from changing the attitudes of elves to that of wizzrds. As Mamie The Hunter has pointed out, breaking the bonds of slavery only goes so far if public attitudes toward the enslaved class does not change. Now that she is an adult, I hope Hermione starts recruting adult members for S.P.E.W. The wizarding community needs to understand that elves are not just cleaning and cooking machines, but living, breathing creatures with feelings as acute as any humans.

Not really. We know from Hagrid's opinion and from seeing the Hogwarts house elves that the vast majority of them are happy as they are. It is possible that Kreacher is different but much more likely that he is a typical house elf and happy with having Harry as a master.
And that is exactly the problem. Unless Harry is very careful, he is in danger of making Kreacher accept freedom when he doesn't actually want it because he thinks it is what his master wants. That is why I think it would be best if Harry made sure that Kreacher knew that he could have freedom if he wanted it, but Harry would happy to accept whatever Kreacher decides. Harry needs to make sure that Kreacher is completely free to choose whether he is free or not, and not impose freedom on him.
It doesn't sound like it does as such. Instead we know that Hermione starts her Ministry career in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures where she greatly improves life for house-elves (iwhich I take to mean not freeing them, but ensuring that they are treated much better).

Houseelf seem to me to be based on the fairy creature called th household Brownie. Brownies no longer work for a family when presented wiht clothes because they find gifts of clothing insulting.

Harry should not give Kreacher clothing, the old elf probably believes what all his ancestors did about serving a master. Harry probably freed Kreacher from having to punish himself for disobeying orders. That aspect of a house elf's slavery is utterly sickening. Harry wpuld give Kreacher the benefits of free choice without official freedom. I don't see him paying Kreacher unless kreacher himself asks to be payed, then Harry would pay him gladly.

even tho harry and kreacher get along now, i dont think kreacher would want to be free. and i also dont think he would be like winky if he was ste free either, but maby he would take it as an insult...

i dunno, but i really think kreacher would prefer to be under harrys service, and not free

Excellent question and a difficult dilemma for two major reasons:

In Potterverse, house elves are portrayed as preferring enslavement to freedom.

In Kreacher, JKR has created an individual who might well be harmed by a careless grant of freedom.

For Kreacher's specific situation, I applaud Maime the Hunter for her solution of providing Kreacher with freedom in a way that clearly doesn't just abandon him.

For the more general ethical question posed by the attitudes of the house elves themselves, let me propose a small experiment:

1. Go back and re-read the posts on this thread, but

2. Each time "Kreacher" or the phrase "house elves" is used, replace it with the ethnic or religious group of your choice.

How, if at all, does that change your viewpoint?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 dont think it really matter his head will soon be up on the wall

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.

I agree. I also think that Kreacher could very well be willing to accept freedom because he does seem to be more independent minded than most house-elves. When Harry summoned him to follow Malfoy, Dobby was punnishing him for insulting Harry and Kreacher defiantly shot back "Kreacher will say what he likes about his master." Dobby had more trouble calling the Malfoy's bad dark wizards after he was freed.

I like the idea of Kreacher going to the elf market wearing a pair of jeans and a tee shirt saying "Harry Potter - Defender of the house-elves." What effect would that have on the other elves?

Kreacher's views and feelings should have everything to do with whether he is freed or not. There is something strange in the argument that says all house elves should be free, and yet denies them the freedom to choose that for themselves.
Having a house elf is a two way responsibility, and Harry, whether he likes it or not is responsible for Kreacher and if Kreacher wants to remain serving Harry then Harry should honour that decision even if he doesn't like it. There is a feeling of security in the master-elf relationship that a freed elf doesn't have, and it seems elves live a long time, so how can Kreacher know that the promises Harry gives to keep him on after he is freed will be respected by any children or grandchildren Harry might happen to have.
I don't think forcing or persuading Kreacher to be free is the right approach to solving the problem of house elves. A much better approach is to make sure that all house elves whether freed or not, are treated well, and Harry and Kreacher can provide a good example of the right way to treat an elf (both to other wizards and to other elves).
They would probably just think he was a bit weird, as the Hogwarts elves did for Dobby and Winky.

Perhaps it is because she isn't looking at it from an American's perspective, Maime, and equating house elves (who aren't human) with human beings who were originally enslaved to serve other human beings against their own will.

The house elves seemed to have a choice originally in that they made a contract of sorts to exchange their services for a home, family, and purpose in life. In my mind, it is more like an arrangement between a Corporate Entity (which isn't human, but a legal person) and its human employees. Corporations give jobs and a purpose to those they employ, and provide certain benefits and activities for the Corporate Family in exchange for a "job well done". Many people give a large portion of their lives to their function within the Corporate Entity - and by default make their own families dependent upon the Corporation as well - creating a new generation of Corporate Employees to further promote the interests of the Corporation as a whole. Many times when a person retires from the Corporation, in recognition for years of devoted service, a "token gift" is given (much like the fake locket that Kreacher gets from Harry) - the traditional item was often a gold pocket watch. For people whose service was highly visible, and were members of the Board of Directors - a portrait (or even a bust) was hung in the Boardroom and near the Executive Offices - as a testament to their contribution and history within the Company.

To a loyal corporate employee a layoff (or involuntary termination of service) can be devastating. It diminishes the years of service devoted to the Corporate Family - and even if severance pay is given to give them time to find another job, the employee has to start all over again. A corporate employee is always free to find another job (as long as it isn't against his employment contract - ie. working for two companies at one time) or leave his position - but do they want to? That is the question...and I think that is the question that Kreacher needs to answer for himself.

I like Hermione's S.P.E.W. efforts because they forced the house elves to be reminded that they had a choice - and they responded as their own choice by refusing to clean up where they felt they were being insulted and where their efforts were not being appreciated. Who knows what would have happened if Dobby didn't pitch in and the Gryffindor common room became a pigsty when the house elves "went on strike" for more adequate working conditions? Dobby in doing so, actually silenced their protests, since he was picking up the slack - crossing the picket line, so to speak, making sure that it was "business as usual".

I doubt that the house elves would have been punished by Dumbledore for refusing to clean in the face of insult, and the teenagers might have learned up to clean up after themselves! lol

I think the way forward is actually for Harry to provide a good example of how to treat a house elf whether free or not, which I already think he was doing by the time the trio had to vacate Grimmauld Place, and probably this was seen to some extent by the other house elves when Kreacher went back to Hogwarts. Being free allows an elf to walk out if he is being treated badly, but if the only people who will employ freed house elves are those who will treat them badly, then that doesn't help. So educating wizards in the right way to treat house elves, backed up by legislation to punish wizards who treat house elves badly, will improve the lot of the house elves more than freeing them.

Edited and I apolgize.

Slavery is an institutional abuse, and Jo stresses this in her novel--therefore, as with any other type of abuse, Harry should refuse unconditionally to participate in it. Because he has inherited and accepted the ownership of Kreacher--as did Sirius--it is now Harry's responsiblity to do the right thing--free Kreacher and compesate him for his service and loyalty. It is Harry's goal to do everything in his power to make freedom a worthwhile endeavor for Kreacher. Kreacher's ignorance of opportunity and choice is no excuse for Harry to continue with what he knows is an immoral system, but good reason, because of Kreacher's loyalty, to provide education and opportunity for Kreacher to enjoy the freedom he so richly deserved. To continue to hold Kreacher a slave because 'he likes it..." leaves Kreacher in as much darkness as he was those years he served the mad commands of a dead woman's portrait. That's is just moral neglect.

Jo establishes that slavery of elves is wrong. What Jo isn't clear about is why it is wrong. It is too simplistic an answer to say slavery is wrong because some of the master's are cruel. One of the wrongs, and Jo shows this is the lack of choice given to the elves. Kreacher did not choose to serve Harry, he was forced to by an immoral tradition, immoral by it's very nature of biding individuals together in a servant and master relationship whether they want it or not.

As to an American, perspective on Slavery-just whom do we believe America inherited the institution of slavery from? Like our language, this system of using slave labor came from England. There is a new movie about the abolitionist movement --Amazing Grace--that is from the English perspective. The USA inherited the English systme of slavery, in fact, the colonist turned rebels, turned free men refusing to free their slaves in their declaration of Independence was a sticking point in the Revulutionary War and later Amrerican/European diplomancy.

And it should be noted, that although some very humanistic idealism of equality first came from English Abolitionist, the principal reason England wanted to ban the slave trade from the motherland and dump the slaves on their colonies was pure xenophobia-they feared what Jefferson and American leaders came to fear: a large group of "alien" peoples who were too visibly different from the ruling the class to easily assimilate into the community.

Even if Jo was looking at Slavery from the English perspective her view would be that slavery is immoral, and she expresses this view through Hermione. So I cannot agree with this premise that only American's are offended by the institution.
But what Jo hints at then withdraws from is the fact that institutional slavery is a many layered sin. Mere emancipation is not enough.

[Edited to remove a comment on a bit of post that was also removed].
But that is why I think how house elves are treated is much more important than whether they are free or not. Harry should treat Kreacher the same whether he is free or not, and that should be in a way that provides an example to others on how to treat elves, free or not. That should probably include allow Kreacher freedom and space to make his own decisions so that he gets used to making his own choices within his duties as a house elf, so that he is used to responsibility and better able to cope if he does choose to be free, but it should remain Kreacher's choice.

How can I post just part of something? all i wanted was the part om xenophobia. You are absouloutely right. The black people in general did not want to go back to africa. They had not been there for at least two generations. Some loved the safetyof always having employment and having food and shelter provided. Others wanted freedom on the land they knew.

The slavery of house elfs seems to me like the viewpoint of a people who had been enslaved for so long that they had forgotten they were ever free. If the Elf slavery is wrong, people can't just leave it at that. they need to decide what is right.

House-elfs are not human, but they are sentient creatures. their culture has to be different form ours. If Kreacher, or any other elf is to be freed, they need to be prepared for freedom.

moving back to the american slavery, many ex-slaves perished becuase they didn't know how to be free. They couldn't figure out how to get work or how to save money for survival needs. Harry should ask kreacher if he wants freedom, and show Kreacher what benefits freedom has. By no mean should any of them be freed as abruptly as winky was.

Part of the maltreatment of house slaves is the institution of slavery. That Kreacher does not desire freedom is not indication of his heart felt choice. His place under the institution is to serve, a family, kind or unkind. If "slavery" itself is the abuse, then in choosing a kind master we are choosing a kind abuser over a unkind one. Read the first part of the life of Josiah Henson--the real Uncle Tom--to understand. His "kind" master came under hardship and sold Josiah's faithful servant mother, and was blind to her cries. Regulus was kind to Kreacher, but he still gave Kreacher to Voldemort, neither Sirius or Kreacher could escape a bond of hatred. Do you see the nature of the evil. It's not about how the person is treated--it is a system that gives one person the "privilage" of deciding whether he should be kind or not.


I'm sorry but this is not exactly the reason many slaves didn't survive. Slaves for the most part had as many survival skills as their European masters if not more. What they lacked was equal opportunity and resources of their fairer skinned counterparts.

There were thousands of newly freed people, families even, but it was easier for a rebel soldier to get a job in a Northern factory, for example, than a black person whether he was an ex-slave or freed man since the Revolutionary War. Even in the North neighborhoods were segregated--heck even cemetaries: for example until the late sixties it was illegal for a person of color to be in certain nothern city limits after dusk unless they were employed.

Back to and how this relates to Harry Potter. If you were a third or fourth generation black slave in the United States, you also had no idea of any home, language, or culture but that of your slave master's or any condition but slavery. It wa the same with Kreacher and Dobby.

And like Kreacher and Dobby, did speak the same language of their masters, and soon began to share the culture and beliefs of the society, even though the society only offered limited role for these people. It became immediately apparent to black people that because of the color of their skin, white servants had certain opportunities that black servants did not: the right to choose a life's partner, the right to chooe where to live and to own the land. I think it became immediately apparent to elves that although they share magical abilities equal to, if not superior to the abilities of wizards, they didn't share equal freedoms or opportunites.

But they live in a society where wizards tell them they don't rights to these opportunity--so Hermione's first duty as emancipator would be to make equality of opportunity a reality.

To only post part of a quote, just used the quote tag, then delete the parts unnessary to your point. Or use the cut and paste options in your browser to get the sentence you want.

I was aguing to prepare the elfs for freedom befor setting them free. even if they lacked the same opportunities only, which by the way, jkr illustrates in how dobby couldn't find a job for two years, it leads to the same thing.

human's and elf's should be prepared for the elf's to have freedom. I don't see it as rigth to say to people(of either species) you now have to live with elves getting paid and wearing clothes. First people should have to see that those things Don't have to be marks of shame, and to the humans pointing out that having elf's free to choose which orders to obey my evenbe ibn their benefit. example: harry told Dobby at the end of cos "Never try to save my life again." He was very happy that Dobby did not obey that particualar order.

On the elves side , theymust know that frredom is not a call for a compleatly different life, unless they want one. It shouldn't be in the hands of peole to decide what is right and wrong in treatment of another race. unfortuanately we don't have anyway to know for certain. The attitude of the elve's is not he problem. It is a result of the problem of instiutional slavery. The result does complicate the problem however.

How do we bring about long term change? I don't think that making laws reguarding the treatment of house-elves will accomplish very much, unless the Ministry can install some magical means to detect mis-treatment, because no house-elf will ever complain or give any evidence against his master.

The first thing Hermione should do (after getting her parents back from Australia) should be to attempt to hire Winky. With Dobby gone, she will need someone to take care of her and the Hogwarts elves were not very supportivie. I agree that a good first step would be for Harry and Hermione to set the standard for the proper way to treat a free elf. Harry thanking Kreacher for his service was very encouraging for few elves would expect that.

Change will have to come gradually: freedom cannot be forced upon the elves, and respect for their elves cannnot be forced upon wizards. The problem can only be solved when both sides learn what is right for themselves.

True, Maime...but the main part of my post was drawing a connection to Slavery and the Corporate Entity.

From that perspective, to me, slavery seems very much alive today - with people not wanting to accept that they are free, in trade for the "security" that a Corporate Job can "bring".

When a Corporation is "taken over" or gets a new CEO, many of the employees "stay on" - the only thing that really changes is the "Master" or Chief Executive. Harry became the new Chief of 12 Grimmauld Place, and Kreacher was part and parcel to the Firm, whether Harry liked it or not.

Hermione sounds to me like a person who advocated "small businesses" over "mega conglomorates" from this perspective.

This isn't said to mock or belittle the issue or legacy of the wrongness of slavery in America as experienced by those of African descent. It is just looking at how from different perspectives, slavery can still be viewed as being very alive even in contemporary culture.

Well-- but it isn't about money or clothes. Admittedly, in practical terms, money often is a major issue in dealing with slavery, because giving people cash is the simplest method of compensating them for their labour, and, once freed, a wealthy person has considerably more power than an impoverished one-- Chrysogonus may have been barred from holding public office, like any freedman in the Roman republic, but his wealth (and his association with the dictator) made him scary. But it's mostly about acknowledging that people-- whether they be human, elf, or any other sentient species-- have rights.

Look at Winky. She didn't like being enslaved either. You could never get her to put it in those terms because she had been indoctrinated with the idea that 'freedom' meant 'dishonour,' but she didn't. The idea of liberation as a form of punishment makes the form of slavery inflicted on house elves particularly obnoxious because it absolves wizards of any duty to their ex-servants. There is nothing like the patron/client relationship that, at least theoretically, meant that a former master had to take an interest in the well being of his freedmen.

What Winky wanted was her job and her home. She had the illusion of freedom. With Mrs Crouch dead, Barty Junior reduced to a kind of permanent childhood by the Imperius Curse and Crouch himself obsessed with work, Winky was mistress of the house. She mothered Barty and could and did bully Crouch into giving his son treats. Though Hermione was first horrified that Winky had been stuck in the Top Box, though she was terrified of heights, that is in fact exactly where Winky wanted to be; she spent months persuading Crouch to let her take Barty Junior to the Quidditch World Cup.

But because she was a slave, Crouch could take those things from her on a whim. However happy her life may have been, it could be torn apart in an instant. She couldn't appeal her dismissal, or plant her hands on her hips and point out that Crouch was supposed to be managing the Imperius Curse and it was hardly her fault if he wasn't strong enough to subdue his son forever. Crouch had no duty at all to treat her fairly, or to help her find a new position once he had sacked her. Her inability to get her job back destroyed her, drove her to depression and alcoholism. It didn't matter that she had a place at Hogwarts, where she would be well treated; that wasn't what she wanted, and the things she did want had been taken away.

If she had been free, Winky could not have been dismissed so brutally, and certainly not without Crouch offering her something in return. Perhaps Dobby was exceptional in wanting a salary and as many socks as he could get his hands on. Perhaps house elves, as a species, have no particular interest in money and clothes-- as goblins have their own ideas about property and inheritance-- but Dobby was not exceptional in wanting some control over his life. Winky's misery and Kreacher's initial horror at having been bequeathed to Harry Potter make that clear.

In Order of the Phoenix Kreacher primarily represented an aspect of Sirius' past. He was simplified, as Mrs Black was simplified, in order to make number twelve Grimmauld Place better represent 'bad memories,' and thus a kind of second Azkaban. Though there are hints of a family resemblance between Sirius and his mother, the strongest image with which one is left is the screaming, dogmatic portrait, interesed in nothing more than causing her firstborn pain. Kreacher, too was 'what he had been made by wizards;' what he thought was unimportant. What mattered was that he kept up that horrible litany of bigotry, the things that his mistress thought.

The kind of freedom that Sirius might have offered Kreacher at that point would likely have destroyed him. At sixteen, Sirius ran away, removing himself from a poisonous environment. Since he couldn't run away again, he did to the entire house what he first did to his bedroom-- stripped away all references to his family and filled it with his things, his people. Kreacher was just another nasty thing that his parents had owned-- and Kreacher himself didn't help matters by acting like a broken record-- and he could only have freed him in the same sense that he 'freed' so many of his other possessions: by throwing him out. Even had somebody convinced him that liberating Kreacher was the moral thing to do, I doubt he could have done so with much grace, any more than he and Snape could convincingly shake hands. Kreacher might have survived by running off to Narcissa, but still, given his mental state and the length of time he had spent couped up in the house, it doesn't seem likely that he could have fared well.

Had Sirius lived long enough to achieve some kind of perspective and realise that the balance of power had shifted-- that Kreacher was not just a relic of the oppression of his mother, but a person in his own right, who had suffered his own tragedies, it might ultimately have been possible for him to offer him a different kind of freedom; had Sirius known about the circumstances of Regulus' death, he might have thought better of both him and Kreacher. They had common ground: long imprisonment, the sense of having failed a loved one. Sirius and Snape never overcame their differences, but Kreacher was not Snape. He kept a secret because he was ordered to keep it, not because he couldn't face it, and once the poison was let out he was able to move on, change his mind about things.

Hermione claimed that 'Kreacher doesn't think like that,' when trying to explain how Kreacher was capable of betraying the Order. It was patronising, but it wasn't entirely wrong. Kreacher wasn't incapable of looking at the bigger picture, thinking that Regulus had died destroying something that Voldemort wanted kept safe and that therefore helping those who fought against him might be the best way to honour him because he was an elf, or even exactly because he was a slave. But the circumstances of his life meant that he hadn't had much cause to expand his horizons; he was preoccupied enough with dealing with the aftermath of Regulus' death and what it meant to Mrs Black. Dobby achieved intellectual freedom long before he was literally free. No doubt the emotional distance from his masters helped. The Malfoys just 'let Dobby get on with it,' except for reminding him to punish himself. He always had difficulty speaking against the Malfoys, because the order to punish himself for disloyalty was so deeply ingrained, but he had no great difficulty in thinking ill of them. He wasn't as well integrated into the family as Winky or Kreacher so he was best positioned to think of himself primarily as an elf and only after that as attached to his family. He could make decisions in terms of the greater good, like: it will be better for all house elves if Harry Potter survives. Of course, once he met him, he also found that he wanted to protect Harry for his own sake, but that doesn't negate his original decision.

Kreacher spent time in Dobby's company once Harry inherited him. Granted, they argued, but that doesn't mean Kreacher was incapable of hearing what Dobby said, or of considering what he heard again in light of his new affection for Harry. His battle cry was 'fight for my master, defender of house-elves!' That's Dobby's influence leaking through, combined with his own experience of Harry's kindness.

There were three groups that showed up late in the Battle of Hogwarts: the parents, led by Slughorn, in order to show that Slytherins sometimes are good in a crisis, the centaurs and the house-elves. The latter two groups are polar opposites: the centaurs, so determined to maintain their autonomy that they would rather be called 'beasts' than 'beings' and inclined to murder one of their own kind for associating with wizards, and the house-elves, so steeped in slavery that they regard liberation as an insult. Hagrid called the centaurs to battle, because maybe they needed to be shamed a bit, to see that isolating themselves wasn't always the right thing to do. The house-elves were led by one of their own, by Kreacher, because they needed to learn to make decisions for themselves-- they had to come to fight evil on their own terms. Dobby was the natural choice for the role of leader, but he was dead, so Kreacher became his successor: the one who appreciated Harry for his civility, who had personal experience of the evil of Death Eaters, who could make the house-elves do something of their own accord, rather than at a wizard's bidding.

Of course elves ought to be freed. The three elves that we know by name suffered due to their condition-- no, four, there was Hokey too, of course-- though only Dobby, who was, after all, an extraordinary person, was able to be blunt about how unpleasant it was to be a house-elf. People ought to have rights; elves are clearly people, not clever magical objects, like talking mirrors. What they want once they are free is their own business. Goblins want to collect all the artefacts made by their ancestors; maybe house-elves want to clean bathrooms in exchange for room and board. Whether the ritual of clothes is necessary in order to give them freedom, I don't know. From a legal standpoint, one might think it would be simpler and better for the Ministry to be able to declare that house-elves were all freed; that they were people and could not be held against their will or abused. It would spare them the unpleasant associations the act of being given clothes, and it would make the act of freeing them separate from removing them from their homes. It wouldn't stop all abuses at once, of course-- the attitudes of both wizards and elves would have to change, and that kind of thing takes time-- but it would give those in situations like Dobby's a way out. But house-elves are magical beings, and there is magic that goes with actions; in voluntarily dying for somebody, in retrieving the sword of Gryffindor, in putting your name in the Goblet of Fire. It might be that it really is necessary to give an elf clothing to free him, and that there is therefore the complicated unpleasantness of explaining away the shame to deal with. If that is the case, I think Kreacher would be one of the most likely candidates to accept it first, and lead the way. His relationship with Harry was good enough to allow for explanations, and in any case, that was the way his character arc worked. He arrived as a pawn, clinging to the views of a dead woman and easily manipulated by Bellatrix and Narcissa, and ended up as somebody capable of rallying his people and leading them into battle.

Momwitch, I don't think Jo would have made Hermione devoted to Elf emancipation had she intended us to see Elf slavery as something very different from enslavement has we have seen it our past and in recent society. It's not as if the institution of slavery no longer exist. I can't think of any society where enforced servitude because of race, religion, or family is considered right. Certainly, in England there are social class issues, but serfs were freed from land parcels ages ago....

Maenad, as usual a thoughtful and brilliant post. I'm afraid I'm not as diplomatic as Maenad.



Yet they were ready to live in a society where elves were naked and serving their every whim and hanging as decorations on their walls?

Harry felt no compunctions about sending his elf on mission to get Dung--whom at the time they didn't know was a traitor or not, (he had fled after the Seven Potters incident...). He made no objections when Kreacher and the elves took up arms against Voldemort. But as he is relaxing, he wonders if he can get Kreacher to make him a sandwich. Were elves killed, were the elves tired? Maybe Kreacher needed someone to make him a sandwich. I don't begrudge the boy a willing servant, but as long as Kreacher is enslaved to Grimmuald Place, he is not a willing servant.

Did you see the George Lopez episode where his racist neighbor doesn't want to live next to Mexicans, but feels it's permissible to put figures of the "lazy Mexican" on his front yard. I don't think the hypocrisy of wizards is a good defense for Harry to avoid doing the right and just thing when it comes to an abusive institution. The only reason Wizards would have for not wanting elves to have an equal place in their society is expressed in the fountain at the DOM. If elves are allowed equal opportunity, Wizards have to give up their delusions of grandeur, their assumed entitlement and superiority to other magical races.

What's the message in Harry's random thought of Kreacher making him a sandwich, although I'm certain Harry would have said please. If Harry called him, no matter if Kreacher was tending to a wounded elf, or a sorrowful elf who had seen his "kind" master's son killed, or who like dFred or Lupin and was mournng them and helping the families, what choice would Kreacher have but to leave what ever he was doing, no matter how vital or trivial to show up and make his master a sandwich? Is Jo saying here: Slavery is wrong, but as long as you have a happy slave, whom you have treated fairly, and ready to do your will, you might as well take advantage of it?

Her message here is confusing.

No, but it could have multiple layers in how the message gets through. Slavery can take on many guises - from those that are blatent, such as we saw in America (and still see the after affects present in our Society), to the less than obvious ones, which could be interpreted as present within a corporate environment - or even in subliminal advertising that changes behavior on a subconscious level.

With Kreacher and the sandwich, I don't know. Perhaps since Kreacher has taken on a nurturing role in Harry's life, he has become associated with comfort and feelings of "home". How many kids when they come home from college fall back into the role of child when their mother takes their dirty clothes and washes them, or prepares for them a home-cooked meal? Are these mothers acting like "slaves" or are they often-times happy to do what they can? Though they are technically "grown", who doesn't like the attention that a parent is all too often willing to give? Harry never had a place of "home" to call his own, where he was welcomed and treated as an important part of what made a family. Kreacher takes on the personal homey mothering that he has lacked for all of those years - although Molly was more than willing to welcome him into her "nest", The Burrow isn't his, like Sirius' house is.

House elf slavery is mechanistically (but not morally) different than human slavery in that it seems the elves are enchanted into slavery. We were introduced to Winky and the willing Hogwarts elves in the same book we were introduced to the Imperius Curse and the sensation of being under it. The elves seem to be under a life-long Imperius Curse where the commanding voice of their master(s) pretty much takes over their brains and they can be compelled into anything by that voice, including self-punishment (and probably like Barty Jr implied with regard to the spider, all the way to suicide). Just like Harry is unusual in his ability to resist the Imperius Curse, Dobby is unsual in his ability to take actions against the will of his masters (and even then I think he mostly used the same tactics as the other elves - either by manipulating the masters to give him commands that could be interpreted as promoting his agenda or by interpreting the commands he was given in the manner that coincided best with his own plan). This is why the whole 'the elves are happy to serve' line doesn't work. A victim of Imperius might feel 'happy' or at least relieved to follow the commands of hir controller because doing otherwise creates mental tension that over time can become very distressing. This does not mean the Imperius victim wouldn't be much better off without the Curse altogether.

So the question is how to proceed into a more morally acceptable situation when in addition to a tradition of elf slavery there is also magical compulsion involved.

Excellent analogy, Oryx. It doesn't matter whether Kreacher is happy to make Harry a sandwich or not. Even if Harry was wise enough to note that Kreacher seemed exhausted and says never mind, what remains is this magical bond that requires Kreacher to respond to Harry no matter what.

Harry wouldn't have asked Molly to get him a sandwich, but I bet if they were at the Burrow instead of Hogwarts, Molly would have dried her tears and fixed the young people supper--a kind of trade off to dealing with her grief.

But Kreacher doesn't have the ability or right, as long as he is indentured to Harry, to offer Harry his service as even an anathema for his grief.

the thought about the sandwhich seemes like a thought of an exuasted person to me. That's another way the slavery is wrong. Elve's have to do whatever the master tells them to regardless of if it makes sense or not. I thik part of the problem is that people don't question elf slavery.
Asking for a sandwhich is harmless, harry could have ordere Kreacher to hurt Malfoy. which doesn't matter. Kreacher would still have to do it.

I just don't think the elves would take kindly to being forced into freedom. they certainly ar not free if they are literally forced into freedom. Clothing is not enough!

This thread makes a lot of sense. I have often wondered if it's not just in the house elf's thinking, but maybe in their genetics that they are supposed to be house elves and not just a regular free elf. Dobby, wanting to be a free elf, has a different genetic makeup than other elves. Does this sound plausible or is it just junk?

I think that Kreacher won't want to be freed.We saw his reaction when Harry gave him the fake horcrux.He was over the moon.He was serving Harry and this time with a better attitude.
I think that Harry is happy with Kreacher now and won't want to free him.
Kreacher will do most of the work and Harry will live a happy life.

It is definitely not junk and it may be plausible.

Ever since Snape offered some to Belltrix and Narcissa, I have been wondering where Elf Made Wine comes from. Does some wizard winery own a large number of house-elves or is there a community of free elves somewhere with their own vineyards and winepresses? And if their is, why didn't Dobby and Winky join them when they were freed?

I wonder if there could be free elves, but they have some problem or dispute (perhaps genetic) with house-elves.