Wizards aren't controlling the society they have there. I think Hagrid's Tale would fit perfectly fine into a happy colonial story, with the wizard society superior.
Dumbledore's exhortation to Fudge, however, would not. And the giants' situation is linked by Dumbledore directly to Wizarding power over Giants.
The books don't suggest any house-elf liberation in time.
Rowling expects that her readers are intelligent and see things headed in that direction. She doesn't tie up all loose ends, or make specific commentary on the future of house-elves, because this is not a series about house-elves. She's a Fabian through and through; she doesn't insult the deep, complex problem of house-elf slavery by suggesting it'll all be wrapped up any time in the near future.
She kisses Ron for saying the elves should decide for themselves whether they fight, but that was more Ron's position all along, since he was the one uncovering the hats.
Ron and Hermione have both moved in their positions on house-elves, Ron to a place of actually caring, Hermione to caring about their will and emotional struggles more than her revolutionary cause.
Respecting the free will of the people themselves in this case means them being slaves
And therein lies the dilemma and the complexity of the whole thing.
Within the story the last elf we hear about is when Harry thinks of having the one he owns get him a sandwich after the final battle.
Precisely. He wonders if Kreacher would...he doesn't command him, and clearly, he decides against the sandwich anyway.
Whatever I agree people in the real world do, I can't just substitute a word from my own world that's earned a power that Mudblood has not earned for Hermione in canon.
Although, on the other hand, we don't really get into Hermione's psyche much at all, so we can't really know this.
Hermione was well on her way to great positions of power within her world, was a Prefect and had been given special privileges by the establishment at times.
Would those positions be, based on everything else we know about the WW, top positions of power? Unlikely, given that there is no woman at the top of any chain of power in the entire series.
But, yes, she has some societal privileges because she's a witch. She is likely to be denied others based on her "Mudblood" status (Restriction on Underage Wizardry is an inherently racist law, for example) and her being a woman.
Even if I did assume it (which I actually don't--I think the goblins' situation is much like the House Elves') it's not a point made in the story.
I think Hermione would be likely to advocate wands for goblins and house-elves. But I return again to Rowling's high view of her readers; among other reasons, she doesn't fill in all the social commentary, because she's intended to open up a conversation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:49 pm (UTC)Dumbledore's exhortation to Fudge, however, would not. And the giants' situation is linked by Dumbledore directly to Wizarding power over Giants.
The books don't suggest any house-elf liberation in time.
Rowling expects that her readers are intelligent and see things headed in that direction. She doesn't tie up all loose ends, or make specific commentary on the future of house-elves, because this is not a series about house-elves. She's a Fabian through and through; she doesn't insult the deep, complex problem of house-elf slavery by suggesting it'll all be wrapped up any time in the near future.
She kisses Ron for saying the elves should decide for themselves whether they fight, but that was more Ron's position all along, since he was the one uncovering the hats.
Ron and Hermione have both moved in their positions on house-elves, Ron to a place of actually caring, Hermione to caring about their will and emotional struggles more than her revolutionary cause.
Respecting the free will of the people themselves in this case means them being slaves
And therein lies the dilemma and the complexity of the whole thing.
Within the story the last elf we hear about is when Harry thinks of having the one he owns get him a sandwich after the final battle.
Precisely. He wonders if Kreacher would...he doesn't command him, and clearly, he decides against the sandwich anyway.
Whatever I agree people in the real world do, I can't just substitute a word from my own world that's earned a power that Mudblood has not earned for Hermione in canon.
Although, on the other hand, we don't really get into Hermione's psyche much at all, so we can't really know this.
Hermione was well on her way to great positions of power within her world, was a Prefect and had been given special privileges by the establishment at times.
Would those positions be, based on everything else we know about the WW, top positions of power? Unlikely, given that there is no woman at the top of any chain of power in the entire series.
But, yes, she has some societal privileges because she's a witch. She is likely to be denied others based on her "Mudblood" status (Restriction on Underage Wizardry is an inherently racist law, for example) and her being a woman.
Even if I did assume it (which I actually don't--I think the goblins' situation is much like the House Elves') it's not a point made in the story.
I think Hermione would be likely to advocate wands for goblins and house-elves. But I return again to Rowling's high view of her readers; among other reasons, she doesn't fill in all the social commentary, because she's intended to open up a conversation.
Which we're having, and it's a good thing ;-)