r/TopCharacterTropes • u/KusanagiGundam • 12d ago

Hated Tropes (Hated Trope) "Kind" slave owners

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

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.

9.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.6k

u/sisdom-weeker 12d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/Fkg6fI0hsngIM
Harry Potter inherits Kreacher the house elf from Sirius and treats him "nicely" (and one of the last thoughts he has in Deathly Hallows is that he wants Kreacher to make him a sandwich)

259

u/evearchway 12d ago

This is a big one because of how popular the franchise is and how good of a person people see Harry.

They also bully Kreature so much because he's a grumpy guy. I'd be pretty grumpy too if I was enslaved!

This whole trope is just people fantasizing about how nice it would be to have a slave. Then they justify it through magic or biology or something.

It literally parallels real life. Of course having a slave was nice for the slave owners, people wouldn't have done it if it didn't benefit them! And sometimes these real people tried to justify it by making excuses using religion or biology

97

u/Otechni 12d ago

Most of Kreature's personality is just from being in a Racist Family that hated people based on Blood Purity.

There's nothing keeping Harry from tossing Kreature a shirt and letting him do whatever. There's no reason to keep the bastard around after the end of the series.

63

u/LegitimateAd2242 12d ago

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

7

u/Otechni 12d ago

Yeah, but after there is no reason to hide Kreature is still enslaved.

17

u/Irish_Whiskey 12d ago

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.

7

u/Otechni 12d ago

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.

21

u/Irish_Whiskey 12d ago edited 12d ago

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.

8

u/Cotten12 11d ago

To be fair the last point is something that we see in real life politics too. Plenty of people vote against their own interests if they have been convinced it messes with the right kind of other people.

11

u/Otechni 12d ago

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.

3

u/ukezi 11d ago

I'm pretty sure that is about the point she had so much money that she started to lose contact with reality.

2

u/Otechni 11d ago

I think she also went through a Divorce. But my memory is not good when it comes to knowledge I have skimmed from somewhere.

I only know she was less intense at one point.

1

u/PhranticPenguin 9d ago

My kids can't and aren't allowed to think for themselves. I'm going to screen and sanitize every story for them just to be sure. If it doesn't have a clear unambiguous moral lesson with clear resolution that involves tearing down oppressive systems for my fictional people then I will smack the shit out of them!

0

u/Irish_Whiskey 9d ago

Literally the exact opposite of what I said. I didn't read the series to them as bedtime stories, but didn't stop them reading or sanitize anything. Or "smack the shit out of them."

As indicated from your other response, you seem quite upset at criticism of this author/series, to the point of making things up to be offended by. Rather than being honest about why mundane criticism of this fantasy series made you so defensive and upset.

 I'm going to screen and sanitize every story for them just to be sure.

You're not a parent and probably not an adult, so I know this isn't a familiar concept to you: But yes, good parents pay attention to the content of bedtime stories and media they give to young kids. And if it requires context, they give context.

1

u/PhranticPenguin 9d ago

Alright big man, you're definitely only a good parent if you patrol your childs choices and thinking. Do not let them make their own judgements. Gotta make sure they never watch Tom and Jerry either, violent and backwards cartoons. They'll grow to be violent too, sad stuff

I truly don't give a crap what rowling or happy potter does.

I care that someone counters your ideas of sanitizing stories to be essentially disney-fied. Children should encounter uncomfortable ideas and form their own moral judgement. Stories do not need to give a explicit moral lesson. Nothing defensive about this, I'm specifically confronting you.

You're not a parent and probably not an adult, so I know this isn't a familiar concept to you

You're just making shit up yourself, it must hurt your ego when your opinion gets mocked. That's fine, my kids are fine too btw.

1

u/Irish_Whiskey 9d ago

You seem to be having a meltdown where you are just making up an imaginary person to look down on.

I said the exact opposite of everything you are whining about. I did not block my kids from reading the books, or seeing Tom and Jerry, or whatever else you're inventing to be mad at. I did not ask or suggest that anything be sanitized. I did not say the books needed to give an explicit moral lesson. I pointed out they already do.

Defensive is the charitable explanation. It's far too dishonest to be just stupidity.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/SorowFame 12d ago

Except Harry only owns Kreacher because he already betrayed Sirius to the racist side thanks to a careless command, he’s literally already sold them out by that point. He’s a liability and should not be kept around.

0

u/DaemonG 11d ago

genuinely, that just sounds like an even better reason to have THE GOOD GUY free him. it's easy to make the right choice when the right choice is free of consequence, and a lot harder to do it when it may have disastrous consequences.