In the book the magical population is on top and then there are the muggles, and then all the magical creatures at the bottom under the thumb of the witches and wizards.

Do you think that she captured real life perfectly or do you think it was blown out of proportions a bit?

Well, she actually provided two different views on that.

On one hand, you have members of the magical world assuming they are "better" due to the magic they have. The story the series depicted was told through the perspective of a magical person, therefore most of the points-of-view we saw were based on what a magical person may believe or assume.

On the other hand, you have people like the Dursley's who would beg to differ. They view magical people as "weird, unusual, etc., etc." I don't think they would place the magical population on top, nor would any other muggle knowing of that existence. Had the story been told from a muggle's perspective, say Vernon or someone like that, I think we would have gotten a very different view of magical people.

I think the answer to your question boils down to the perspective the story is told from. I'm sure magical people just see Muggles as being beneath them, because they have no "powers." Then you have Muggles thinking magical folk are no better than they are, or, possibly, that they are lower than the muggle population (in the same way Vernon would see them). I think JKR really captured the points-of-view of a magical person quite well.

I think she captured it quite well because like what has been said, it's all subjective. Wizards would possibly (and probably) be seen as freaks to the muggle community and the muggle community would and partly is in general, seen as weaker or less capable than the wizarding community.

This is just like in real life and particularly within schools. Popular kids see the less popular as nerds or geeks, freaks that they don't care about. Whereas those less popular 'nerds' would see the popular kids as posers and stupid. This is an example of course but it does work that way quite often V.V

I get what your saying, but I think another thing that was probably more easily seen in the books is blood and heritage. There was all the pureblood mania in the books, where they thought they were better than everyone else due to their background and their bloodline. Then we have the half-bloods, who were seen as somewhat common ground--they weren't the best of the best, but they weren't at the very bottom either and they were usually accepted by everyone. Then there are the muggleborns who were sometimes treated like dirt. That bit reminds me of the caste system in India...where you are born is where you stay, and you can't move in and out of ranks (either that or it is very VERY uncommon). People judged you based on the blood in your veins, which I think was a bit more common in the Harry Potter books rather than the muggles vs. wizards bit

It's hard to say whether or not the bit about magic creatures being discriminated against was accurate because there is no real life proof to go off of there, but I assume that is how the caste system in the Wizarind World would go. Even werewolves were looked at differently because of a disease they were inflicted with, like lepers.

Miss Lissy, it depends what the witch wizard thought the worth of the creature. Hermione with her SPEW believed every living creature should be treated with respect. However for some the question is which animal do they feel is more significant, and thats how creatures get there status in the world and this even changes over time. Hermione I believe got it right, treat every living creature wit respect.

On you're pureblood bit it is likes kings of olden times, no one gives them the right to rule anymore just because of there bloodline, however some are still highly respected like in England. But overall as time progressed in the wizarding and muggle societies we both saw it fit to choose governmental positions by ability, not blood status.

I agree with you Anna this book is written subjectively from Harry' point of view, and he thought a certain way. Which was basically everyone was on the same level and it was your actions that defined who you were.

But then on the other hand when someone went again what Harry thought it was wrong. Like the purebloods who thought that magic should be kept within purebloods. Then they were vilified and raked over the coals.

But what is wrong with wanting to preserve your way of life?

Then Hermione created SPEW, but then JK didn't write about anyone joining and helping Hermione in her quest for elf freedom.

But I think that JK's magical creatures were another way to put out the different races and add in the racial problems without overtly saying "black people are treated like this, native american's are treated like this." Instead she used the magical equivalent.

Tish, I think your right to the point of which JK showed the magical population from Harry's perspective, it was not that pureblood's wanted to keep magic in their own families, that is purely a choice matter, but they wanted to eradicate all other types of magic in people of halfblood and muggleborn decendence. In this, she added a dimension to her story the younger readers wouldn't understand. She added race and descrimination.

By separating magic, muggle and creature she gave the book a more realistic perspective. Pureblood's can be in some ways related to people of white skin in Australia (as an example) where the Aboriginal's were attempted to be 'bred out' to create white children and not half-casts or fully indigenous children. But with magic, in appears sporadically as with muggleborn children. It's not genetics anymore, it's chance.

JKR showed this again with the elves. Most or all of the magical population viewed house elves as a class beneath them. When JKR introduced SPEW she wanted to portray subtely her view of the races in a less controversial or derogatory way. The elves however. liked their lives and in most houses were treated with a respect almost equal to a family pet or caregiver. Malfoy's home was an exception, or more probably his character's flaws.

In answer to your question, she captured real life perfectly but by putting it in her story, and watching the world from Harry's perspective it was most probably quite a realistic and just response.

Alex Black I don't remember reading in the book that most house elves were treated with respect,some are, and some are not, I believe it said house elves had a certian bond to that house which made them want to tend to it and liked it because that was there purpose. They had a fierce loyalty to their master. Plus house elfs ve no rights, so do you really think that people would not blame them if they do something wrong or make them do the worst chores imaginable? Some were treated with respect, you're rigt Alexa.

It's like slavery, a person cannot leave it for they are owned,and even if they had rights they did not know them because they could not read or write and often mistreated for they are not like family and given only the bare necesities to work in. They must do whatever the master tells them if they don't want to get hurt or go hungry. It is not this way in all situations but in many cases it is.

Herminny, house elf treatment depended on the household. Can you imagine the Weasley's mistreating their elf? But if was in the book, the Hogwarts elves were treated with respect. There is a difference between respect and slavery. A slave can be treated with respect, but it's still a slave. House elves might not have rights, but that didn't mean their owners explifically treated them cruelly.

It is slavery love. They're owned by the family, and often passed down through generation. They must, yes, do what their master tells them, but not all families treat their elves like scum. Your making an assumption on the little we've red about these creatures, it's impossible to make a statement such as 'All magical families treated their elves cruelly' as we haven't enough evidence. But if JK was trying to portray these creatures as a kind of view on other races then it's fair to say it was a pretty equal balance. There are some countries in which other races are prejudiced and bigoted, but others in which they are treated like all other citizens. Same with the elves.

i have to agree with Alexa. In more forms of slavery the slaves had rights and weren't supposed to be mistreated. In Babylon their slaves were given fine linens and jewels to wear. In Rome the slaves could earn their freedom and buy it back.

So the treatment of the house elf depended on the person.

Dumbledore paid Dobby for his services as Dobby was a free elf to do as he pleased. It does say something that he couldn't find paid work. I think even when you have people who would treat a house elf nicely, they still held onto the view that house elves didn't deserve to be paid.

But they paid their human servants....very interesting

Tomasina that is ancient history compared to most places of legal slavery today, yes it always depends on the situation and some it is like the Ancient Romans buying back their freedom, but I doubt anyone in slavery is treated as well as ancient Babylonian slavery.

On the idea even Dumbledore only paid the human servants and not the elves in the Hogwarts kitchens it is because the houselves did not want to be paid being loyal to the school. However Dobby being a free house elf was paid because that is what he wanted being free.

Well for one thing there is no legal slavery today at all so we have to go off "ancient history" as you put it

And actaully most cultures did treat their slaves and POWs with respect. I mean many cultures even let the prisoners they captured and turned into slaves return back to their homes after a certain amount of years.

Many times the word indentured servant was substituted for slavery because most often that was what it was. The owner paid for the persons passage and they had to work off their debt. That was a legal form of "slavery" in most societies. Slavery wasn't legal in France or England, but indentured servants were.

Only the colonial American slavery system take it and turn it into a systematic form of oppression.

And what I meant was that the idea of even paying a house elf to do the same job that you would pay a human to do was out of the question regardless if the elf wanted it or not.

Herminny, I don't see what your trying to get at. Tommy is just trying to show that it can be viewed from both sides. As she pointed out, slavery is illegal by international law and can be tried in human rights courts on a global scale. But this is almost completely off topic. We were talking about elves...in Harry Potter. I digress.

Dobby wasn't a slave in the truest definition of the word. He was a servant. Servants are paid and live with the family as a governess, butler etc would. Wheras slaves were usually scullery maids and the lower classes and in some cases were 'owned' by the family till their deaths.

Elves could if they wanted 'leave' their families, but loyalty and honour of the home prevented this from happening. Dobby, is an exception to the other elves like Kreacher and Winky who clearly found losing or being disowned from family the bleakest and most horrible future.

Elves don't want to be paid, and in most cases view themselves as slaves. On the other hand, an example like south americans in slavery knew that it was wrong. So elves have been in slavery since the dawn of their existence? Just tells you something about humans-magic and muggle doesnt it.

I think the point of a novel is to blow things out of proportion so the point can get across However, I'm not so sure it was so far from reality. Today, high class billionaires, or even a hundred years ago in European aristocracy, wouldn't they have looked down on penny beggars? Just like a pure blood, someone who'se known nothing else (like an Earl who's the 27th Earl of the title) would look down on a mud-blood, (who like in the late 1700s, middle-class wealthy people who fought their way into nobility).

I don't think it's blown out of proportion at all, actually.

well i think that Jo intended to be out proportion to illustrate her point. There is a caste system in human society similar to the one in the wizarding world, where the wizards and magical beings are people with power, namely money. the muggles are the average joes, and the house elfs and such are the blue collar laborers that get paid minimum wage.
the point of the hyperbole is to "shock" people into action, or at least make them semi aware of the situation, which is exactly what she did. So she did exaggerate a little, but she did it for an excellent reason and she also was not too drastic. the only thing that is allegorically wrong is that the lower class is completely enslaved with little freedom, whereas the lower classes in the US have an opportunity to get out, if they are lucky.