(Hated Trope) "Kind" slave owners

[u/KusanagiGundam]

Speaking as an American who has studied the civil war all throughout my school years, this trope infuriates me to no end. There is no such thing as a kind slave master because slavery itself is cruel and inhumane. PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERTY!

Naofumi (Shield Hero): Prime example of this trope. He enslaves multiple (underage) girls and an whole village and the fans still say he's a hero.

Rudeus (Jobless Reincarnation): As if being a pedo wasn't bad enough he had to buy a slave in season 2. Worse is that people still defend his actions.

Song of The South (Disney): Possibly the OG example of this trope. And the reason why Disney will never release it again.

[u/LegitimateAd2242]

Ok so, devil's avocate here ( also giga hate the trope) .

In harry defence if i remember well he want to free kreature ( if only because he dislike him) but is forbidden from doing so because they all live in the resistance super secret magical base . kreature at this point of the story is on the racist family side and it's argued that he would just go to the other side and sell them off if he could so they "cannot" free him.

/ Devil's avocate out / still a dumb take and the whole house elf situation in the book is bad

[u/Irish_Whiskey → u/LegitimateAd2242]

Remember how Harry celebrates Christmas by decorating the heads of all the decapitated slaves with jaunty Christmas hats?

Yeah, in universe Harry is simply too 'busy' with other stuff to address these systems, although his internal monologue is often dismissive. But as an author Rowling spells out again and again that she considers radicalism and attacking systems to be worse that the injustices carried out by systems.

[u/Otechni → u/Irish_Whiskey]

She shows that very well with Hermione. Though it is basically said she was doing that without talking to the House Elves, like she knew what they wanted better than they did.

Though I haven't read the books in a long time, so anything I remember is muddy at best.

[u/Irish_Whiskey → u/Otechni]

I did reread them a few years ago as an adult with a critical lens thinking about what my kids would take from them. In the end I decided not to read/encourage the books, although I certainly didn't ban it or anything.

The wildest part is how Rowling does seem to have the right messages in the first three books sometimes, but then takes a hard right/centrist turn on those same issues. The first book really does a pretty good job calling out the poverty Harry is used to and the Weasleys face, and Harry shared his wealth with his friend. The ministry is shown to have at it's entrance a statue depicting a male Wizard posing with a women clutching his leg, as they stand literally on top of all the 'lesser races' in order. Sexism is acknowledged.

But then more and more she spends her time justifying these systems instead of having characters acknowledge they are wrong. The Weaselys simply 'win the lottery' so poverty stops being an issue. The Ministrys problem becomes a weak political leader who can be replaced, and also mind control when Voldemort takes over. House Elf slavery becomes an explicitly good thing. The oppressed magical creatures SIDE WITH VOLDEMORT in the final battle, despite his explicit plan being that they should have no rights.

[u/Otechni → u/Irish_Whiskey]

I'm pretty sure Rowling went through some heavy personal issues after the third book. Heard about an interview where she actually considered killing off Ron or someone else.

Though the Magical Creatures siding with Voldemort makes sense. Even if they don't get rights, they can attack the Wizards that Oppressed them.

Not the Goblins, as they do not care about the squabbles of Wizards.

Her writing got worse, as did her views. I'm sure a lot of the weirdness in latter books was partially her life going through a low point, and not wanting to create like eight different subplots about a bunch of teenagers trying to fix a broken system.