I didn't say it did, but white nationalist will see it and take a big run with once they have found out. Be HP or RS.
Who?
Name one white nationalist who's ever used HP as a foundational text for their views.
That's precisely the situation with AI in countless science fiction, notably Asimov. The AIs are not analogous to a real world group. But it would be utterly naive to read the breadth of work and believe it draws nothing from the real-world phenomenon of slavery. It evokes and invites these comparisons. It is unavoidable as long as a sapient creature is compelled to serve another for nothing.
Again, that's debatable. Fears around AI have been around since at least the first half of the 20th century, and these are fears that have endured into the 21st century, because there's genuine reasons to be wary when it comes to AI. It's entirely possible to write a story about AIs turning on their creators and not having any slavery analogy (e.g. Terminator).
So I ask again: what would you call a system that keeps an entire species in bondage with no cop on the beat to prevent abuse?
Well first, your premise is wrong in part, because there are "cops on the beat," even if they'd faded away by the time of the series when it came to house elf welfare, and why Hermione strengthens the regulations post-Hallows.
Second, as I've already said, under normal circumstances, that would be called slavery, but these aren't normal circumstances. You're applying human concepts and values to a species that isn't human and doesn't hold the same values.
And the slaves in Gone with the Wind were portrayed as happy as well. Just because an author writes something does not make it good.
There's a world of difference between HP and GwtW.
1: GwtW is historical fiction, HP is fantasy.
2: The slaves in GwtW are humans, enslaved by humans, and we know how slaves feel about enslavement. House elves, in contrast, aren't human, and when offered the chance of freedom, reject it wholesale.
3: I'm reluctant to comment on GwTW too much because I've never read/seen it, but as far as I'm aware, the book/film (especially the latter) has always had some degree of controversy associated with it in regards to the depiction of the South. Harry Potter, in contrast, has none of this baggage. Even disregarding the house elves entirely, HP doesn't really tell us much about anything in time period it was written in, nor the time period it's set in, since the bulk of its events are in a fantastical world.
And that somehow makes exploitation okay? As long as the being you're exploiting isn't a human?
Well your question rests on the premise that the creatures in question see themselves as being exploited and/or want to change their status.
If there's a group of people who you insist need to change, and they insist that they don't need to change, who's the one at fault here?
Force? No, but given the Wizarding World’s propensity towards and proliferation of mind control magic, I would be deeply suspicious of that attitude from another sapient being so closely intertwined with them. I mean we normal humans are more than capable of brainwashing and conditioning each other, never mind what we can do when we don’t consider the subject a person.
All of that's hypothetically possible, but there's no actual evidence for it.
Hermione’s main mistake was starting with the Hogwarts house elves, who are arguably going to be the only ones actually getting the deal as idealised.
Well, that's part of the mistake, but the bigger one is that Hermione never cares (initially) what the Hogwarts house elves actually want. Contrast that to her later career where she works for house elf welfare, and gets much more effective results at that.
You do realize I've been reading comments from TheMysteriousGX, Gordon4, and others. They usually know what they're talking about. I looked up the rest.
So, basically, Alien: Covenant all over again.
Yeah, I don't care about the rest of your rambling, skepticism, and over defensive attitude of these books. I have been looking at the thread. Ignoring you for right now, so don't even bother responding back. Got shit to do tonight.
Fine, you can go on my ignore list if you want.
Would the pro-hermione here rip islamic headscarves from the head of muslim girls and women ?
Probably.
Also, what does happen, in the potter book, to a house elf who refuses to serve. Is he punished, are there outside constraints ?
If a house elf is discontent, they've got limited options. If they refuse to obey a master's order, they self-harm themselves. They do, however, have leeway in interpreting orders (see Kreacher for example).
Human "will" is so complex, and so suspicious, the word covers so many different degrees of acceptation, that a same overly simple fantasy metaphor can be pointed at any of these configurations. At will.
Yes, but this is assuming that the hosue elves are meant to be a metaphor at all.
Hence my curiosity. The fact that it doesn't - is that because of different underlying approaches to the issue of headscarf constraints ? Are there parallels between stances about it and stances about this book ?
Far as I'm concerned, people can wear the headscarf if they want, it's not my business to tell people what they can and can't wear, as long as no coersion is involved.
If we're applying that analogy, Hermione is the type of person who insists that everyone who's wearing a headscarf is oppressed, before maturing and looking at the matter intelligently, distinguishing between those who wear it by choice, and those who are forced to.
Really, I just find many of the arguments defending the portrayal of house elves as a little sus, because they mostly rely on the conceit, "But they're happy!" Which is a line that has been used in the past to justify exploitation of other people. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth and I today I find the writing to be ham-fisted and poorly conceived and executed. Why people insist on defending this as good writing or whatever rubs me the wrong way.
"Do not resist, we are liberating you."
If we're talking about lines, I assume you're familiar with that one.
I'll flip this on its head - there's a precedent for the opposite, because there's been countless attempts at trying to improve a people's lot that have ignored the wishes of those involved, and in the end, it doesn't work, or even makes things worse.
And to be frank, I don't think the SPEW plotline is particuarly well written, but that's beside the point.
Mother of fuck
A house-elf (sometimes also referred to as just elf) was a magical being which was immensely devoted and loyal to the one designated as their master.[3] House-elves served wizards and witches and were usually found under the employment of old wizarding families taking residence in elaborate...
harrypotter.fandom.com
Yeah man, they're slaves. These books are neither complex nor nuanced
You said earlier that you didn't consider anything outside the books to be canon, yet here you are citing stuff outside the books.
As to your actual points, all of this is factual (the speculation for the WOMBAT aside), but again, nothing you've cited shows that house elves are operating outside their nature. That house elves have the potential to be abused is well established, we see that from Kreacher, to Winky, to Dobby, which comes to a head in book 5 - Kreacher was abused, Sirius died, abusing goodwill for too long will have reprecussions (and is a generally shitty thing to do regardless).
