East vs West: why is Essos is more advanced than Westeros?

[239JMFL34109]

This feels a little bit like an argument about semantics. It shouldn't even be an argument, we're looking to start a new conversation regarding history and ASOIAF. If you feel the decline started earlier than what we think, that's fine. I thought our video was pretty cool, and on Monday we'll post the 2nd one, about Valyria....

Gil

I think they have been rotting from the inside since the time of aegon the conqueror when he came in on the war against them. they control and large area of land and people but they seem to be falling to braavos rising. I think you are right the tipping point to a sacking revolt or fall of volantis seem probable. i just wonder if we will see it.

[DanielWilson]

So are we discounting people who have lived in Africa for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, as not African because of the color of their skin?

I was thinking the same. Go and tell a moroccan guy hes not african!

So now I'm some sort of 'racist'? Did you read the comment? You should use google for your maybe.

Got it. There are no Africans but the Bantu. I' sorry to tell you but that's not true.

After all I wrote, that's what you got? That all Africans are Bantu. Where do you see that? I think I know where you are coming from though. I guess Bantu supposed to be an insult, and even the deBoars who mistakenly started calling all Africans 'Bantu' would not and do not refer to themselves as Africans, but Afrikaan's, a new title they made up. But you can't move somewhere and become native there. I'm not sorry to tell you.

There are no other type of African but the so called 'Black' type. If not, show me one passport, or certificate of nationality that shows anyone as being African. You can't, because it is a description of a land mass, and for a specific 'ethnic' group : The Africans aka Black People. Let me break it down simple for you. If an African becomes an English or French citizen are they now a European? No. He is an African wherever he goes. But he can be a Frenchman or Englishman. Can an Arab from Morocco be an African American? No. He is semitic wherever. If a European becomes a Japanese citizen, is he now an Oriental? No, he is a European everywhere he goes. It is a reference to his so called 'race'.

I know you already know that, but it's propaganda like Danaerys and Essos that enforces your view. Do you know how big Africa is? You can drop Europe in the Sahara and most Africans wouldn't know they are there. There are far ranging peoples that can show their history there going back thousands and thousands and thousands of years. There is NO credible source that will tell you Arabs are native to North Africa. If you had googled it, it can show you exactly when Arabs entered the area. Its like saying, since when are French people white, because you see their football team is mostly black. That's crazy.

And remember that it was the 'eugenics' campaigns that even came up with this race thing, and tried to separate slightly lighter from jet black, to divide the people among the lines of physical traits, and that's only in the late 19th century. And the remnant of that campaign most likely informs your world view. But bear in mind, that these are the same people who said 'Black' (or 'Bantu' in your words) people are not fully human. This is all just propaganda to justify the 'Ramsay Bolton' behavior, and Danaerys' behaviour. To present other people as non-human and inferior to justify the atrocities against them, as I said in my first comment. And see, even Arabs(I guess 90% human) and them are going at it now.

The fact of the matter is, no European, not even Herodotus himself, who only repeated stories, claims to have been into Africa before the Greko Romans, and even then that was just on the extreme northern edges. You see the map of Westeros, as said in the video that's how they saw the world. They didn't even know Africa existed, and this is the 15th century Europe. So they are not a good source for African History. Semetic people have long had a relationship with Africans, as represented by the 'Tuareg', Sudanese and Ethiopians. However, it is well documented when the Arab invasions started, and there is no other record of mass displacement of North Africans before those invasions. Yes, they pushed many Africans south and into Europe, but they are still there. So because you watch a few movies, and some FOX reports you think you can tell me about my definition and culture, where I directly come from? No, all due respect sir, but that cannot work. And no educated, or rational Arab I’ve met claims to be native to North Africa or African.

I don't want to watch or read some fantasy, honestly, of Africans taking over Europe, or Chinese taking over India, or anything like that. At least not in any disrespectful way. And when I watch shows from other countries I don't see it. When I watch shows about Europeans by Europeans, I don't see it. And I can just sit back and enjoy the stories for what it is, for the characters and conflicts, so on.

Yeah, so GRRM should have stayed in Westeros, IMHO. How can a pyramid be hollow and used as a meeting hall, just dumb stuff. All they are going to do is get their movies and books banned in the countries they are supposed to represent, because it's disrespectful. I give him credit though, because he doesn't shy away as much from how real things were when doing a time piece. He writes of the stink and the social conditions, as well as the upsides, that are left out in many Medieval settings. If you know about horses, they walk and shit everywhere, so all those streets are full of horse poop. He puts all that stuff in, and it doesn't take away, but adds more to the story. That's genius. But I don't like the Essos presentation at all, mostly. That's my opinion. And Africans are so called 'black', that's a fact.

Hey Daniel, do you mind elaborating? I missed that part of the conversation?

Hey, Gil. I elaborated above.(and beyond)

[GoT_Academy]

I think they have been rotting from the inside since the time of aegon the conqueror when he came in on the war against them. they control and large area of land and people but they seem to be falling to braavos rising. I think you are right the tipping point to a sacking revolt or fall of volantis seem probable. i just wonder if we will see it.

That could be true, though in that time Westeros has seen 4 full-on wars/rebellions (Aegon's conquest, A Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion, Robert's Rebellion, the War of the 5 Kings). And I'm not even talking about the smaller skirmishes. So it's all relative.

[GoT_Academy]

Hey, Gil. I elaborated above.(and beyond)

:)

Got it. No way Arabs are North African by descent. Sure there's some mixing, but Arabs emanate from Arabia (aka Saudi).

[239JMFL34109]

That could be true, though in that time Westeros has seen 4 full-on wars/rebellions (Aegon's conquest, A Dance of Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion, Robert's Rebellion, the War of the 5 Kings). And I'm not even talking about the smaller skirmishes. So it's all relative.

at the same time we don't know how many times volantis has been at war. the cities they use to control fight between themselves a lot and pentos fights bravos a lot so it seem likely that there have been conflicts in the 300+ since aegon even if the prefere to uses trade to expand their power.

[kimim]

Dany is another catalyst for the East's decline. She takes their Unsullied by force and treachery (which we all applaud) and then sacks cities and runs them to the ground. The Masters still muster up huge forces to fight her, coupled with a small piece of Qarth's fleet. It's mostly the Ironborn and schemes of other players who bring the slavers down. As I was reading ADWD I was thinking to myself, oy my God, Dany is doomed and she doesn't even know it. It wasn't even close. And then Tyrion does his thing, the dragons are freed and most of all Victarion comes from the rear. Those are all specific book-related developments. We were talking about the general trends and geo-political situation that was the basis for the story. More riches, more stability, more progress in Essos in comparison to Westeros. It's not that they were the Silicon Valley, it's just that Westeros is a backwards place by all accounts, same as Medieval Europe.

How do you know Essos is richer? How do you JUDGE? Do you count the numbers of rich people? Do you compare the quality of life of the "average" person in Essos with that of Westeros? The "average" person in Essos is a slave. Re stability: I honestly don't know enough about Essosi history to comment. "More progress," though, is completely without any backing. What do you mean by "progress"? Do you mean technological progress? Where are the examples? Do you mean "progress" in some socio-economic sense? Again, where is the proof? Essos is majority slave. Whether that is progress or not, idk.

Tyrion description of volantis

Old Volantis, first daughter of Valyria. Proud Volantis, queen of the Rhoyne and mistress of the Summer Sea, home to noble lords and lovely ladies of the most ancient blood. Never mind the packs of naked children that roamed the alleys screaming in shrill voices, or the bravos standing in the doors of wineshops fingering their sword hilts, or the slaves with their bent backs and tattooed faces who scurried everywhere like cockroaches. Mighty Volantis, grandest and most populous of the Nine Free Cities. Ancient wars had depopulated much of the city, however, and large areas of Volantis had begun to sink back into the mud on which it stood. Beautiful Volantis, city of fountains and flowers. But half the fountains were dry, half the pools cracked and stagnant. Flowering vines sent up creepers from every crack in the wall or pavement, and young trees had taken root in the walls of abandoned shops and roofless temples

speaks to me of stagnation decline and decay.

This.

...

There are no other type of African but the so called 'Black' type. If not, show me one passport, or certificate of nationality that shows anyone as being African. You can't, because it is a description of a land mass, and for a specific 'ethnic' group : The Africans aka Black People. Let me break it down simple for you. If an African becomes an English or French citizen are they now a European? No. He is an African wherever he goes. But he can be a Frenchman or Englishman. Can an Arab from Morocco be an African American? No. He is semitic wherever. If a European becomes a Japanese citizen, is he now an Oriental? No, he is a European everywhere he goes. It is a reference to his so called 'race'.

...

Look, there's a visual (racial) identifier, so it's easy, visually, to identify certain individuals as having recent African ancestry. I say recent, as all humans originated in Africa. After that, however, it's cultural. If a person of African ancestry has French citizenship, then, yes, they're French, and European. That they might not be considered so by the local culture, or by their own family in the old country, is (sorry) a result of racism.

This kind of thing can get ridiculous. It's equally easy to visually identify a person of Japanese, Chinese, Thai, or Korean, or Indian ancestry as being from Asia. Does that mean that my relatives, who appear pretty Mediterranean, but some of whom live in central Anatolia, are not Asian? Are they less Asian than a kid whose family moved to the US from China back in the mid-19th century? What about the influence of culture?

[The Holy Goat]

:)

Got it. No way Arabs are North African by descent. Sure there's some mixing, but Arabs emanate from Arabia (aka Saudi).

Just like all humans most likely originate from Africa. If we continue to believe that the place people originated from thousands of years ago still is their origin, then everyone would be considered african. That is not how the world works. The Pan-ethnic group known as Arabs are generally considered to be both african and asian in origin. Or are the citizens of Brazil, Mexico, and the US not american just because their ancestors originate in the Old World?

[GoT_Academy]

Just like all humans most likely originate from Africa. If we continue to believe that the place people originated from thousands of years ago still is their origin, then everyone would be considered african. That is not how the world works. The Pan-ethnic group known as Arabs are generally considered to be both african and asian in origin. Or are the citizens of Brazil, Mexico, and the US not american just because their ancestors originate in the Old World?

I wasn't talking about pre-historical events.

[The Holy Goat]

I wasn't talking about pre-historical events.

Then what are you talking about? Because if we are talking about a purely modern context, then the various Arabic groups are North African or West Asian. If you are talking about the time when Arabs first appeared, some 1400 years ago, then they were indeed West Asians from the area now known as Saudi Arabia... but only for a while, since their culture spread and supplanted other cultures, including those in Northern Africa.

Either way, these things are entirely subjective and depends on the context. I for one disagree with the notion that only Dark-skinned individuals are Africans, just as I disagree with the notion that only Native Americans are American. It's rarely that black and white.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Not to take away from the discussion, but I just saw your question, which the phrasing is confusing to me. And I'm going to answer it too.

Short answer, there is no other kind of African, other than the 'black' kind. It is known.

I presume you're talking about the Arabs found there now, and I guess you think they were always there. Which is hard to believe. But Arabs can be Mauritanian, Lybian, Egyptian, whatever, but they can't be African. African is synonymous with Black. (as in, black American/African American). Arabs are 'semetic' people they call it. I'm quite sure you already know that. But I'll type anyway.

'North Africa' can also refer to that specific piece of land as well, of course. (as in: North African Arabs, as in Arabs living in North Africa).

To ask 'since when are North Africans black?' in such a way, lol, sounds very 'Kahleesi' indeed.

But, the people of that area (North Africa), as in the ones who were the Carthaginians and Moors of North Africa, Spain(Al Andalus ring a bell?) and Sicily, (and the 'Black' popes, and 'Black' Roman Emperors you highlighted) are called the Berber and Moors by Europeans and (I forgot what they call themselves), who converted to Islam and engrafted their native cultures into it. It was a fairly amicable coexistence while Arabs, who invaded in the 8th century (AD), were a minute portion of the population for hundreds of years, until the large migration of Arabs starting in the 11th century first,( which climaxed in Europeans reclaiming the Iberian peninsula in the late 15th century), and the mass migrations of the 18th century and so on, which displayed itself in persecution of the native people of the land later, which goes on in civil injustice and conflict to this day. Why am I giving a history lesson to such an impertinent question? idk,

Oh, the obsidianly jet black popes. St. Victor, St. Miltiades and St Glesius? I can think of, not sure if there were more. (St Maurice was 'Black'. Was he a pope?)

Only black Emperor of Rome I can think of is Septemius at the moment (I know there are more), because I saw a GRRM interview where he talked about Hadrian's wall as the inspiration for 'the Wall', and I knew about Septimius Severus(sp.?) who was a black Emperor who completed the Hadrian's Wall after another emperor started it, to keep the Scotland people at bay when England was a Roman colony. So he would be a Brandon the Builder of sorts. He died up there at that wall. I've seen two paintings of him, with his European wife, and two sons, who also became famous for fighting each other fiercely in campaigns after his death, but still managed to establish the 'Severus Dynasty' of 2 more Emperors. All coming down from Septemius. Which was cool to me in relation to the series.

So...I guess the basic answer to your question is, North Africans were always 'Black'.

But I don't want to make this about Africa. It was just my personal perspective on the 'East vs West' (with an invisible South).

As said in the video, where do all this paper and silks, so forth come from? Pointing to Essos in comparison with Persia and Asia as a technically advanced place, and how the historical recessions of those places may or may not foreshadow a soon decline in Essos. I think it might, with religion playing a major part.

I agree with what you're saying in terms of its just fantasy. (There are wooly mammoths, giants and direwolfs at the wall) not a stretch from that to lions in Westerlands, I get that. All the animals as sigils are native to the relative area they represent. We could make up any scenario to justify it.

If you are saying that real Medieval Europeans used lion symbols because they knew of pre historic lions, then I disagree. (this was couple pages back) the article you posted says scientists cannot place a lion in Europe later than 5500-3000BCE, so suggesting they were in Europe in real Medieval times is like saying dragons or Giants were there. That's how ridiculous it is. Similarly saying there were wooly mammoths in Scotland in pre historic times, so even though they didn't know they existed they used African Elephants as their symbol in Medieval times.

But as far as Essos, I see the idea of complex commerce, people trading across languages and cultures as a norm. While Westeros pretty much stick to their own, apart from specialty goods. It is presented, however in the book that there is much larger amount and display of wealth, and more evenly distributed in Essos. I mean, if gold is money, the value of it in Westeros is dependent on Casterly Rock. And if they run out, it would skyrocket, giving the Essosi an advantage again. (where do they get their gold? Valyrian mines I think?)

Sorry, but what you are saying w.r.t. Black North Africans is just conspiracy theory stuff, popular among certain political groupings who also tend to like to claim everything from Ancient Chinese to Vikings (!) as black, and other weird crap like that. These tendencies are by no means unique to black people (in fact earlier in the 19th-20th century many Europeans liked to claim almost every civilization in the world as founded by "whites", either directly or indirectly) but it is still totally wrong.

To reply to your post more directly no, North Africans didn't identify as Arabs prior to the spread of Islam, but that does not mean that the earlier people (Berbers) living there where or are (they still exist after all, though they tend to be in the minority) black. Them being on the same landmass as the rest of Africa says nothing at all. Chinese, Indians and Europeans are all part of the same landmass too, Eurasia, yet that doesn't mean that they are identical. North Africa is separated from Sub Saharan Africa by the Sahara desert, which has historically been a very strong barrier against movements of people, leading to North Africans both culturally and genetically having a lot greater connection with peoples around the Mediterranean Sea than they do with anyone else.

It is obvious both if you look at their own artwork as well as read texts by people who had dealings with them, that pre 11th century North Africans were not black (it should be pointed out too, that dividing humanity into white, black and asian is a modern custom, and people in the past would have seen themselves as belonging to specific ethnic groups or similar instead. So the discussion is rather about what we modern people would call black). For some obvious examples, look at the Fayum mummy portraits from 1-3rd century AD Egypt. https://www.google.se/search?q=fayum+mummy+portraits&biw=2051&bih=1001&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9yTMVPKnE-afyAPU4IGQAg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=0.67

Or for that matter, look at this several thousand years old depiction from ancient Egypt http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Races2.jpg showing an Egyptian to the far right, Middle Easterner left of him, then Nubian (present day Ethiopia/Sudan etc) and then the rest are "Lybians" aka North Africans.

The idea that some diffuse "Arab migration" in the 11th century would have completely replaced many millions of people on what is basically half a continent is really ridiculous and you actually ruin your credibility in other topics by believing in it. The idea of something like this happening so late in history is extra illogical too, and clearly just pieced together so that the people who came up with it can get black Moors controlling Spain. Since apparently two thousand years of Assyrian (Semitic), Achaemenid (Iranian), Carthaginian (Semitic), Greek (European), Roman (European) and initial Arabic conquest (Semitic) dominance of parts or the whole of North Africa apparently had no impact on the pure Black people living there whatsoever, but then suddenly some random "Arab migration" during the High Middle Ages wiped them all out withoutleaving a trace. Does not exactly sound credible, and what it really just comes down to is attempted culture theft from the people who actually live in that part of the world today.

As for historical migrations and conquests in general one can say that total or near total genocide of the original inhabitants is very uncommon, and that what usually happens is the conquered people gradually assuming the customs and language etc of the dominant power (and thus eventually starting to see themselves as being the same) rather than literally dying out. Hence why English people nowadays tend to be believed to have only a minority of actual Anglo-Saxon heritage, French people only being a few percent actual Frankish, and so on. Since the Germanic armies that invaded these countries would have been so small compared to the people already living there.

What happened in America w.r.t. the Native Americans is very uncommon and was made possible because they were hit by several series of extremely deadly epidemics that they had no immunity against due to being cut off from the rest of the world for so long, plus that Europeans due to relatively advanced technology were able to ship migrants across the sea in numbers that just weren't feasible in the pre-modern world.

Now to finish up there were some individuals from Sub Saharan Africa living in North Africa too, but the very fact that sources from the medieval period bother to point out or illustrate this disproves the notion that the entire population there was black.

Anyway we are as you say super off topic now and I suggest we take this discussion to PMs or similar instead, if you wish to reply.

As for the discussion about lions as heraldry it really doesn't have to mean much. Dragons, unicorns and gryphons were popular as heraldic symbols during the Middle Ages too, and there were sadly not many of them around in Europe at that time either.

[DanielWilson]

Look, there's a visual (racial) identifier, so it's easy, visually, to identify certain individuals as having recent African ancestry. I say recent, as all humans originated in Africa. After that, however, it's cultural. If a person of African ancestry has French citizenship, then, yes, they're French, and European. That they might not be considered so by the local culture, or by their own family in the old country, is (sorry) a result of racism.

This kind of thing can get ridiculous. It's equally easy to visually identify a person of Japanese, Chinese, Thai, or Korean, or Indian ancestry as being from Asia. Does that mean that my relatives, who appear pretty Mediterranean, but some of whom live in central Anatolia, are not Asian? Are they less Asian than a kid whose family moved to the US from China back in the mid-19th century? What about the influence of culture?

I think you are meaning well, but think about what you're saying. What's after recent? If 'recent African ancestry' you equate to 'Black'...then you change it to homosapiens (saying all prehistoric people originated there). Then after that anyone who migrates there is African? I just did a long post about that.

Then you said, if an African is born and raised in France, then a European, or another African says he cannot claim European heritage as his ancestral identification, then they are racist? That doesn't make sense to me. I think you're saying 'Just call the man what he wants to be called', but that's not the question I was answering.

And if Asian means, Indian, Thai, etc. all the cultures on that side, then Asian is not comparative to African, because Indians and Chinese alone for ex. are two distinctively different groups. They don't use European definitions for themselves. Neither is Mediterranean comparative to African. That could be anybody. And that Chinese kid in America, is Chinese. And I don't mean nationality of course.

Then what are you talking about? Because if we are talking about a purely modern context, then the various Arabic groups are North African or West Asian. If you are talking about the time when Arabs first appeared, some 1400 years ago, then they were indeed West Asians from the area now known as Saudi Arabia... but only for a while, since their culture spread and supplanted other cultures, including those in Northern Africa.

Either way, these things are entirely subjective and depends on the context. I for one disagree with the notion that only Dark-skinned individuals are Africans, just as I disagree with the notion that only Native Americans are American. It's rarely that black and white.

First, the 'Arabic groups' you're saying didn't just appear. They have a long history before that as well and had been interacting with Africans for a long time. I said that already. Culture spread cannot, again, make some one African, or Chinese, or any ancestral identity.

I said nothing about Dark-skinned, that is the very mistake I'm addressing. Not all Africans are Bantu, but non are Arab.

Europeans with very limited knowledge, thought Tainos were Indians. They named the place America, and in hindsight of their mistakes, called the people American Indians, then after learning more, called them 'Native American'. And on and on. But the people know themselves, have cultures and don't need Europeans to tell them who they are (and that shouldn't be taken as an insult), especially with such limited knowledge. So your statement that, "only (people there before America) are American' doesn't make sense to me. America has nothing to do with who they are. American is not an ancestral 'identifier'. Europeans in America are Europeans, Africans in America are Africans, Semetic people in America are Semetic, and the Taino and other native people of the land are none of the above.

Sorry, but what you are saying w.r.t. Black North Africans is just conspiracy theory stuff, popular among certain political groupings who also tend to like to claim everything from Ancient Chinese to Vikings (!) as black, and other weird crap like that. These tendencies are by no means unique to black people (in fact earlier in the 19th-20th century many Europeans liked to claim almost every civilization in the world as founded by "whites", either directly or indirectly) but it is still totally wrong.

To reply to your post more directly no, North Africans didn't identify as Arabs prior to the spread of Islam, but that does not mean that the earlier people (Berbers) living there where or are (they still exist after all, though they tend to be in the minority) black. Them being on the same landmass as the rest of Africa says nothing at all. Chinese, Indians and Europeans are all part of the same landmass too, Eurasia, yet that doesn't mean that they are identical. North Africa is separated from Sub Saharan Africa by the Sahara desert, which has historically been a very strong barrier against movements of people, leading to North Africans both culturally and genetically having a lot greater connection with peoples around the Mediterranean Sea than they do with anyone else.

It is obvious both if you look at their own artwork as well as read texts by people who had dealings with them, that pre 11th century North Africans were not black (it should be pointed out too, that dividing humanity into white, black and asian is a modern custom, and people in the past would have seen themselves as belonging to specific ethnic groups or similar instead. So the discussion is rather about what we modern people would call black). For some obvious examples, look at the Fayum mummy portraits from 1-3rd century AD Egypt. https://www.google.se/search?q=fayum+mummy+portraits&biw=2051&bih=1001&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9yTMVPKnE-afyAPU4IGQAg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=0.67

Or for that matter, look at this several thousand years old depiction from ancient Egypt http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Races2.jpg showing an Egyptian to the far right, Middle Easterner left of him, then Nubian (present day Ethiopia/Sudan etc) and then the rest are "Lybians" aka North Africans.

The idea that some diffuse "Arab migration" in the 11th century would have completely replaced many millions of people on what is basically half a continent is really ridiculous and you actually ruin your credibility in other topics by believing in it. The idea of something like this happening so late in history is extra illogical too, and clearly just pieced together so that the people who came up with it can get black Moors controlling Spain. Since apparently two thousand years of Assyrian (Semitic), Achaemenid (Iranian), Carthaginian (Semitic), Greek (European), Roman (European) and initial Arabic conquest (Semitic) dominance of parts or the whole of North Africa apparently had no impact on the pure Black people living there whatsoever, but then suddenly some random "Arab migration" during the High Middle Ages wiped them all out withoutleaving a trace. Does not exactly sound credible, and what it really just comes down to is attempted culture theft from the people who actually live in that part of the world today.

As for historical migrations and conquests in general one can say that total or near total genocide of the original inhabitants is very uncommon, and that what usually happens is the conquered people gradually assuming the customs and language etc of the dominant power (and thus eventually starting to see themselves as being the same) rather than literally dying out. Hence why English people nowadays tend to be believed to have only a minority of actual Anglo-Saxon heritage, French people only being a few percent actual Frankish, and so on. Since the Germanic armies that invaded these countries would have been so small compared to the people already living there.

What happened in America w.r.t. the Native Americans is very uncommon and was made possible because they were hit by several series of extremely deadly epidemics that they had no immunity against due to being cut off from the rest of the world for so long, plus that Europeans due to relatively advanced technology were able to ship migrants across the sea in numbers that just weren't feasible in the pre-modern world.

Now to finish up there were some individuals from Sub Saharan Africa living in North Africa too, but the very fact that sources from the medieval period bother to point out or illustrate this disproves the notion that the entire population there was black.

Anyway we are as you say super off topic now and I suggest we take this discussion to PMs or similar instead, if you wish to reply.

As for the discussion about lions as heraldry it really doesn't have to mean much. Dragons, unicorns and gryphons were popular as heraldic symbols during the Middle Ages too, and there were sadly not many of them around in Europe at that time either.

Ok, your first paragraph sounds like you're calling me a racist nut-job, and if I respond to that they would cancel my account. And you left out the 21st century Europeans that do the same. Hope that's not what you're doing.

You're using terms like Eurasia, and Sub-Sahara. Don't be difficult. What I said was the term 'African' can also refer to the landmass, as in: African Lion. That doesn't mean belonging to an African, but being native to the Land Mass of Africa. And the Saharan peoples were nomadic, so 'historically'(?)preventing what movement? Making up stuff. And why bring up Berber and still want to disagree. If its unanimous that the native people are the Maghreb, or Berber (meaning that's what they called their empire when the Arabs came), then you say they just start calling themselves Arab? Yeah right. But then if the population is a mixture of Arab and Berber mostly, then how can they be the same. Why wouldn't your source just say the Arab people are the native Berber, or something like that? Or are you saying the Berber are not African because they are not 'Bantu' so they must be Arab (like the Tainos must be Indian) , which is (Columbus) square one.

Anyway, the Berber are African, and are still within the genetic 'black' type, and of course there is mixture, but they are obviously different people from Arabs or Europeans.

Again you're telling me the Berber are not 'black', and what people before Medieval Europe would have thought. I can't go by that.

Then you're showing me paintings from 3rd century AD, when the Black popes you scoffed at in my comment were even before that. You know the Egyptian Empire had declined 1000 years before that. These were Roman colonies, Byzantine paintings (painting white faces over mummies by the people you mentioned in your first paragraph), what does that have to do with the Berber? There were so many people who came and went through the area, are all of them African too? Then you show me a random image with your opinion, and call me a conspiracy theorist? lol, my time is wasting.

Ok, I read the rest. North Africa is half a continent, the Berber are Arabs and the Arabs are Arabs, the native people just suddenly died off like the dinasours, and you call me a conspiracy theorist again. Nice. Don't burn me for saying the world is round. Check the paintings of Isabella conquering the last Moorish city with the (black) Berber generals surrendering.

And even though you were rude to me, you know the Muslims are well renowned for keeping written records in Amaraic right? And it is written the Moorish 'conquest' of Spain was overseen by an Arab authority person, who clearly states it was the Native dark (to them) non-semetic peoples indigeneous to North Africa that did the 'conquering' as you put it.Though it wasn't that violent, with the little towns that were there in Spain. (And it was the black Berber who became known as the Moors, as the Arabs are distinctively listed differently.)Not to mention the Black Moorish heads on house shields and coat-of-arms all over Europe, and the Moors are u nmistakeably the Berber. Or wait, let me guess, you'll say the semetic Moors, went to 'Sub-Saharan Africa' got some blacks, brought them up, and so on so on...ridiculous.

Plus this is hundreds of years after the Berber had already had a dynasty that ruled the whole Mediterranean, and the Romans claimed Southern Italy and Sicily from them.

There are all kind of indegineous Africans, and non of them are Semetic. You have brown skin, curly haired non semetic Africans, as well as jet black tight curled haired Africans, indigenously (unless you want to say Indians are Arabs too.) Egypt's 7,000 + year empire declined before 1200BC, and even before then, there was a short reign by the Assyrians, before the Nubians returned it to the indigenous North Africans (not Arabs). The Assyrians are semetic btw. But it still wasn't until recently so many Arabs occupied North Africa. Plus Egypt, like Carthage was a flippin world hub...and just using the term 'Lybians' is silly to what we are talking about. All those borders now were made in the late 19th century by Europeans in the 'scramble for Africa'.

But I must take the word of foreigners over my own people who are rooted to that land from before time. I am no grey worm. You still don't understand how deep some peoples' history is, so all your reasonings just sound like 'eugenics' campaigning to me. Trying to explain away how African people, Black people, Semetic, Indo and Oriental people, were doing all that stuff, and were so advanced, without them knowing. It really punches a hole in their big claims back home.

And if Columbus, just months after the conquest of the Moors, sailed on 'Arab styled' ships, and they took him all the way across....you know what, nevermind. Read my earlier comments again.

Don't post in public and ask me to reply in private.

"...doesn't have to mean much" (?) Dragons and unicorns. Heraldry. Yeah whatever, Lions come from Africa. It's a fact.

[Taenqyrhae]

From what I've read (I am not a biologist), it seems that, if you go by genes, you can divide humanity into five races. All five of these races have members that are considered "African". One of these races has also spread to the rest of the world, and relatively recently a mutation led to a lightening of the skin. Since all modern humans throughout the world who are not from Africa come from one racial group that's only diverged for about 60,000 years (when humans have been in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years), any two humans of non-African origin are more closely related than some populations in Africa are to other populations within 100 miles.

Basically, there's five human races in Africa, one of which has spread into the rest of the world and experienced some minor cosmetic mutations in isolation.

[TheNinjaDC]

It's not really, besides Bravos.

Every city/region does have a specialization (like Summer isle swan ships & bows), but the general culture seems stuck in the past, and still in the shadow of Valyria.

Slaver's bay in particular seem to be essentially living relics. Best demonstrated by them being conquered so easily by a teenage girl.

Yes, they have larger cities, but these are city states which by their nature have much more centralized governments & cultures than kingdoms that distribute it more evenly across a plethora of minor lords.

[DanielWilson]

@Khaleesi is dead wrong

Last thing, then I'll leave Gil's discussion alone.

If the Moors (or Berbers) of Spain, Sicily and beyond, are semetic, how do you explain this? (you can PM if you wish)

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/africans-in-medieval-and-renaissance-art-moors-head/

I just want to post that so people know I'm not on any 'conspiracy theory stuff'. Africans were all over 'Medieval' Europe. They were not that oblivious to the outside world as represented in the series ( and tainted history.)

I put Moorish Heads in google and that was the first thing that came up. The time to type one paragraph could have found that, smh.

So neither Essos nor Westeros is that historically accurate.

edit: extras (expression): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffVIq_dbOq8

[James Arryn]

Antebellum south doesn't work for SB, as they're not part of a nation or a culture which sees slavery as an abomination.

Point of contention: to say that the U.S.A. was a nation that saw slavery as an abomination is to significantly revise history. As recently as 1850, abolitionists were considered to be a dangerous fringe party by most of the nation. Mexico, the push west and in particular the Kansas question definitely moved the issue more to the foreground in the American consciousness, but those whose views were strong enough to want to actually do something about stopping slavery...as opposed to not approving it's expansion...were still very much a minority and the most accurate way to describe most censure on the subject would be 'unfortunate'. And picking apart the thinking of it's abominable nature is even more problematic: the vast majority of Americans still believed in some version of racial inferiority, and a lot of the fuel for the anti-argument ( particularly in the West) was economic in nature, and differed very little on the issue of racial equality.

In general free state people thought slavery an evil, but somewhat along the lines of disease or war or famine; wish it weren't true, but what are you going to do? European opinion was a lot stronger, and there's a correlation between cosmopolitanism and degree of objection, but most other impactive factors like religion, government and the like were at best divided.

Virtually every historian agrees that Lincoln pushing for pre-war abolition or pushing for war to enact abolition would have been an act of complete political suicide, as Lincoln himself notes several times. This would hardly be true if the country at large saw the issue as starkly as you're suggesting.

On a later note, I think Qarth's parallel for Constantinople is more conceptual, from a Westerner's POV. The Bosphorus was seen by most as the Outer Edge, beyond which lay the semi-mythical Holy Land and a whole bunch of mystery/nothingness/dragons.

In reality of course it was a center and bridging point as you suggest, but that was not true for the majority of Western Europeans, most of whom never travelled very far from the place of their death. It's worth noting that the initial peasant arm of the First Crusade that originated in the center of what we now call Germany marched only a couple days east, and sacked towns in Eastern Germany, under the assumption that this was so far out it must be the place the Pope was on about.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Ok, your first paragraph sounds like you're calling me a racist nut-job, and if I respond to that they would cancel my account. And you left out the 21st century Europeans that do the same. Hope that's not what you're doing.

You're using terms like Eurasia, and Sub-Sahara. Don't be difficult. What I said was the term 'African' can also refer to the landmass, as in: African Lion. That doesn't mean belonging to an African, but being native to the Land Mass of Africa. And the Saharan peoples were nomadic, so 'historically'(?)preventing what movement? Making up stuff. And why bring up Berber and still want to disagree. If its unanimous that the native people are the Maghreb, or Berber (meaning that's what they called their empire when the Arabs came), then you say they just start calling themselves Arab? Yeah right. But then if the population is a mixture of Arab and Berber mostly, then how can they be the same. Why wouldn't your source just say the Arab people are the native Berber, or something like that? Or are you saying the Berber are not African because they are not 'Bantu' so they must be Arab (like the Tainos must be Indian) , which is (Columbus) square one.

Anyway, the Berber are African, and are still within the genetic 'black' type, and of course there is mixture, but they are obviously different people from Arabs or Europeans.

Again you're telling me the Berber are not 'black', and what people before Medieval Europe would have thought. I can't go by that.

Then you're showing me paintings from 3rd century AD, when the Black popes you scoffed at in my comment were even before that. You know the Egyptian Empire had declined 1000 years before that. These were Roman colonies, Byzantine paintings (painting white faces over mummies by the people you mentioned in your first paragraph), what does that have to do with the Berber? There were so many people who came and went through the area, are all of them African too? Then you show me a random image with your opinion, and call me a conspiracy theorist? lol, my time is wasting.

Ok, I read the rest. North Africa is half a continent, the Berber are Arabs and the Arabs are Arabs, the native people just suddenly died off like the dinasours, and you call me a conspiracy theorist again. Nice. Don't burn me for saying the world is round. Check the paintings of Isabella conquering the last Moorish city with the (black) Berber generals surrendering.

And even though you were rude to me, you know the Muslims are well renowned for keeping written records in Amaraic right? And it is written the Moorish 'conquest' of Spain was overseen by an Arab authority person, who clearly states it was the Native dark (to them) non-semetic peoples indigeneous to North Africa that did the 'conquering' as you put it.Though it wasn't that violent, with the little towns that were there in Spain. (And it was the black Berber who became known as the Moors, as the Arabs are distinctively listed differently.)Not to mention the Black Moorish heads on house shields and coat-of-arms all over Europe, and the Moors are u nmistakeably the Berber. Or wait, let me guess, you'll say the semetic Moors, went to 'Sub-Saharan Africa' got some blacks, brought them up, and so on so on...ridiculous.

Plus this is hundreds of years after the Berber had already had a dynasty that ruled the whole Mediterranean, and the Romans claimed Southern Italy and Sicily from them.

There are all kind of indegineous Africans, and non of them are Semetic. You have brown skin, curly haired non semetic Africans, as well as jet black tight curled haired Africans, indigenously (unless you want to say Indians are Arabs too.) Egypt's 7,000 + year empire declined before 1200BC, and even before then, there was a short reign by the Assyrians, before the Nubians returned it to the indigenous North Africans (not Arabs). The Assyrians are semetic btw. But it still wasn't until recently so many Arabs occupied North Africa. Plus Egypt, like Carthage was a flippin world hub...and just using the term 'Lybians' is silly to what we are talking about. All those borders now were made in the late 19th century by Europeans in the 'scramble for Africa'.

But I must take the word of foreigners over my own people who are rooted to that land from before time. I am no grey worm. You still don't understand how deep some peoples' history is, so all your reasonings just sound like 'eugenics' campaigning to me. Trying to explain away how African people, Black people, Semetic, Indo and Oriental people, were doing all that stuff, and were so advanced, without them knowing. It really punches a hole in their big claims back home.

And if Columbus, just months after the conquest of the Moors, sailed on 'Arab styled' ships, and they took him all the way across....you know what, nevermind. Read my earlier comments again.

Don't post in public and ask me to reply in private.

"...doesn't have to mean much" (?) Dragons and unicorns. Heraldry. Yeah whatever, Lions come from Africa. It's a fact.

I am not calling you that, but these ideologies and ideas are propagated by such people. Yes, some Europeans definitely do stuff like this today too, though it was more popular in the past.

Most of the rest of this post is pretty rambly, and it is not easy to understand what you want to say. But plenty of both Berbers and Copts still live in North Africa and they are not black, but look more like Middle Eastern and some Southern European people.

Berbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people#mediaviewer/File:Berbers_Mosaic.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/dzuiie.jpg (Berbers demonstrating with their flag in the background)

Egyptian Copts:

http://egyptianstreets.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/copts.jpg

There are some groups of "black" Berbers too, but they live in the south of the Sahara desert and not near the Mediterranean Sea. You clearly have never been to North Africa.

As for the painting I think you are talking about it was a made in 1882...

If you look at paintings of the Moors that were made when they actually existed, such as this one (made by Moors themselves) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Maler_der_Geschichte_von_Bay%C3%A2d_und_Riy%C3%A2d_002.jpg/800px-Maler_der_Geschichte_von_Bay%C3%A2d_und_Riy%C3%A2d_002.jpg or this one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Alhambra14.jpg they are clearly not black.

Some individuals were, and there are sources mentioning or depicting this (which is not strange either when you consider the Trans-Saharan slave trade, plus that they would have had diplomatic, trade and sometimes military contacts with people further south, particularly for one Moorish dynasty that controlled some parts and tribes of the Southern Sahara too), but not the population at large.

Lybians definitely existed in ancient times, the modern day country of Libya is named after them. Egypt did definitely not have a "7000 year empire" before 1200 BC, Egyptian civilization began around 3000 BC.

You don't have any deep historical knowledge, that much is clear. Doesn't matter where your "roots" are from or if you are a "Grey Worm" or not, you clearly haven't bothered to study the regions you are interested in very seriously. You've just read some conspiracy theory stuff on the internet.

[DanielWilson]

Rambly, huh? HAHAHA,now you're being unreasonable

you missed something though.

@Khaleesi is dead wrong

Last thing, then I'll leave Gil's discussion alone.
If the Moors (or Berbers) of Spain, Sicily and beyond, are semetic, how do you explain this? (you can PM if you wish)

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/africans-in-medieval-and-renaissance-art-moors-head/

I just want to post that so people know I'm not on any 'conspiracy theory stuff'. Africans were all over 'Medieval' Europe. They were not that oblivious to the outside world as represented in the series ( and tainted history.)

I put Moorish Heads in google and that was the first thing that came up. The time to type one paragraph could have found that, smh.

So neither Essos nor Westeros is that historically accurate.

edit: extras (expression): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffVIq_dbOq8

And as I said in my comment, lol, I knew you would probably say, 'oh, the semetic moors went to 'Sub-Saharan Africa' (whatever that is) and grabbed a couple blacks, blah blah blah...Hahaha, just like they say Herodotus was 'mistaken' when he said the Egyptians were black, but he's right about everything else though, including supernatural lions, lol.

Ok, let's say that foolishness is right, if they were semetic, why are they represented by the one or two blacks as you say? Does that make sense to you? How did Moor become synonymous with Black, or Negro in Spain, Italy, Sicily and every other European country, if they are Arabs? Did you read the article? What does that have to do with the people you are trying to slander me with? This is European kings and nobles who interacted with them, and depicted them. This is a European website, unless you quickly burn these symbols as well, the ridiculous attempted transformation of the Moors to Arabs is incomplete.

I am not calling you that, but these ideologies and ideas are propagated by such people. Yes, some Europeans definitely do stuff like this today too, though it was more popular in the past.

Most of the rest of this post is pretty rambly, and it is not easy to understand what you want to say. But plenty of both Berbers and Copts still live in North Africa and they are not black, but look more like Middle Eastern and some Southern European people.
Berbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people#mediaviewer/File:Berbers_Mosaic.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/dzuiie.jpg (Berbers demonstrating with their flag in the background)


Egyptian Copts:
http://egyptianstreets.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/copts.jpg

There are some groups of "black" Berbers too, but they live in the south of the Sahara desert and not near the Mediterranean Sea. You clearly have never been to North Africa.

As for the painting I think you are talking about it was a made in 1882...

If you look at paintings of the Moors that were made when they actually existed, such as this one (made by Moors themselves) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Maler_der_Geschichte_von_Bayâd_und_Riyâd_002.jpg/800px-Maler_der_Geschichte_von_Bayâd_und_Riyâd_002.jpg or this one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Alhambra14.jpg they are clearly not black.
Some individuals were, and there are sources mentioning or depicting this (which is not strange either when you consider the Trans-Saharan slave trade, plus that they would have had diplomatic, trade and sometimes military contacts with people further south, particularly for one Moorish dynasty that controlled some parts and tribes of the Southern Sahara too), but not the population at large.

Lybians definitely existed in ancient times, the modern day country of Libya is named after them. Egypt did definitely not have a "7000 year empire" before 1200 BC, Egyptian civilization began around 3000 BC.

You don't have any deep historical knowledge, that much is clear. Doesn't matter where your "roots" are from or if you are a "Grey Worm" or not, you clearly haven't bothered to study the regions you are interested in very seriously. You've just read some conspiracy theory stuff on the internet.

First of all how can there be photos of the Moors.
.
You first picture is a collage of photos of every type of person in the world, except Africans - So now everybody is a Moor except Africans. Silly

Then another photo of some Arabs with crosses, with the one African in front of him (curly haired)- If you think that is proof of the past, you really think I am grey worm.

Let me just explain, putting random pictures, then spilling your misguided theories based on them, makes you a conspiracy theorist. Cut it out.

The site I showed you is official, by Europeans, from the time of the Moors. This is no secret, but some tried to cover it up to justify their Danaerys and Ramsay Bolton type atrocities.

You don't like truth, you prefer the Danaerys version, but I'm going to force feed you. This is from actual European historians of European history:

The objects featured here all include the head of a moor, or black African, in profile. The use of the 'moor's head' as a heraldic device dates from the 13th century. The emblem has connections to the Crusades, reflecting associating individual families with victories over the moors

In my second comment I told you Moors were a status symbol. But it seems hard for you to believe the enormous Black empires that unknowing flourished beside Europe for thousands of years. Not for me, seems quite obvious.

The device may also have connections with the Hohenstaufan dynasty, which ruled the Holy Roman Empire from 1138 to 1254. The Emperor Henry VI (1165–97) kept black African retainers. His son Frederick II (1194–1250), who was also king of Sicily, took a keen interest in the black Muslim population that had remained in Sicily after the island's return to Christian rule in 1061. He established an enclave for these Muslims near his palace in Lucera in southern Italy, and recruited his musicians and elite bodyguard from the community.

Does this sound like European kings were youtube conspiracy theorists?

Frederick's use of black Africans can be explained by his desire to present himself as a 'world ruler'.

Educate yourself and stop trying to dismiss African people's history. Propaganda, smh. There were over 100 million Africans taken across in the Trans Atlantic Slave trade.

By 1400 a moor, as a crowned head in profile, or occasionally as a full figure, was relatively common in German heraldry. In time, its usage spread to almost every European country.
.....
The earliest known example appears in the 11th century. Its use by families such as the Saraceni of Siena, the Morandi of Genoa, the Morese of Bologna, the Negri of Vicenza and the Pagani of Saluzzo suggests that the device was intended as a pun on surnames similar to the Italian words for moor, negro and saracen. However, the Pucci family also used it.

Click the link, see if the images can be mistaken. By the actual kings in Europe, not disrespectful, corny Dany.

In the upper left section of the plate above, Cardinal Antonio Pucci's (1483–1544) shield is displayed. Antonio was created Cardinal in 1531 and adopted by Pope Clement VII (Giulio de' Medici) at the urging of his uncle, Cardinal Lorenzo Pucci. This explains why the shield contains the Medici balls on the left and the Moor's head device of the Pucci family on the right, surmounted by the cardinal's hat.

Moors were chillin with the Medici when 99% Europeans were peasants in the field, because they showed them how to rebuild their European empire in a new way, but they switched on them, double-teaming with the Arabs. It is known.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/africans-in-medieval-and-renaissance-art-moors-head/
Click the link and educate yourself. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Stop pushing propaganda against non-Europeans across the internet. If GRRM is such a history buff, how could he have missed this? lol

Danaerys chapters are inexcusable.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Rambly, huh? HAHAHA,now you're being unreasonable

you missed something though.

Sorry for not commenting on the Kanye West song.

And as I said in my comment, lol, I knew you would probably say, 'oh, the semetic moors went to 'Sub-Saharan Africa' (whatever that is) and grabbed a couple blacks, blah blah blah...Hahaha, just like they say Herodotus was 'mistaken' when he said the Egyptians were black, but he's right about everything else though, including supernatural lions, lol.

Ok, let's say that foolishness is right, if they were semetic, why are they represented by the one or two blacks as you say? Does that make sense to you? How did Moor become synonymous with Black, or Negro in Spain, Italy, Sicily and every other European country, if they are Arabs? Did you read the article? What does that have to do with the people you are trying to slander me with? This is European kings and nobles who interacted with them, and depicted them. This is a European website, unless you quickly burn these symbols as well, the ridiculous attempted transformation of the Moors to Arabs is incomplete.

Not grabbed. There were "blacks" living in the Southern Sahara which they had dealings with, plus that there was a slave trade going on there too. Herodotus is definitely not right about "everything else". In fact one popular epithet for him is "the father of lies" due to how much BS he wrote.

First of all how can there be photos of the Moors.

.

You first picture is a collage of photos of every type of person in the world, except Africans - So now everybody is a Moor except Africans. Silly

No, it is a collage of pictures of Berbers from across the various North African countries. They still exist, you know. Around 150 millions of them actually.

Then another photo of some Arabs with crosses, with the one African in front of him (curly haired)- If you think that is proof of the past, you really think I am grey worm.

No, a photo of Coptic Egyptians. The non-Arab inhabitants of Egypt, whose language is a descendant of what was spoken in Ancient Egypt. Once again, you prove that you have zero knowledge of this part of the world that goes deeper than skin.

Let me just explain, putting random pictures, then spilling your misguided theories based on them, makes you a conspiracy theorist. Cut it out.

The site I showed you is official, by Europeans, from the time of the Moors. This is no secret, but some tried to cover it up to justify their Danaerys and Ramsay Bolton type atrocities.

Europeans made websites during the time of the Moors? Cool story bro. I guess they used Windows 98 back then since it is such an old operating system?

You don't like truth, you prefer the Danaerys version, but I'm going to force feed you. This is from actual European historians of European history:

In my second comment I told you Moors were a status symbol. But it seems hard for you to believe the enormous Black empires that unknowing flourished beside Europe for thousands of years. Not for me, seems quite obvious.

Does this sound like European kings were youtube conspiracy theorists?

Educate yourself and stop trying to dismiss African people's history. Propaganda, smh. There were over 100 million Africans taken across in the Trans Atlantic Slave trade.

Click the link, see if the images can be mistaken. By the actual kings in Europe, not disrespectful, corny Dany.

Rulers having black Africans as retainers or slaves or "mascots" definitely happened in Europe since Roman times and into quite modern, since they looked exotic and were rare. Likewise with using a caricatureish black head like that as an heraldic symbol. The one dismissing people's histories is you though, who try to steal everything from the people in North Africa because of your own identity issues. Go to a Berber from North Africa and say this kind of stuff and see how he reacts.

There were a number of big "black" empires or kingdoms in history though, like Benin and Songhai and Mali and Ethiopia, but they were south of the Sahara desert. I'm guessing you don't mention these states because you don't even know about them. Which is I guess partially the fault of Western history education, since it focuses so much on places in Europe and the Middle East/North Africa.

Moors were chillin with the Medici when 99% Europeans were peasants in the field, because they showed them how to rebuild their European empire in a new way, but they switched on them, double-teaming with the Arabs. It is known.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/africans-in-medieval-and-renaissance-art-moors-head/

Click the link and educate yourself. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Stop pushing propaganda against non-Europeans across the internet. If GRRM is such a history buff, how could he have missed this? lol

Danaerys chapters are inexcusable.

No, I'm think you are just an American with identity issues. I agree that GRRM's depiction of Essos in the Dany chapters is not particularly good (especially Slaver's Bay) compared to how much effort he puts into Westeros, but not because of your wrong reasons. Plus to be fair GRRM's depiction of all cultures that aren't mainstream Westerosi are flawed. Ironborn are not very good portraits of Vikings, Wildlings are not very good portraits of hunter gatherers (or whatever they are supposed to be) Dothraki are not fair depictions of Mongols or plains Americans, and so on. He is clearly mainly interested in Western Europe during the high and late Middle Ages, so that's what he knows about.

[Ingelheim]

I'm a Spanish myself, and I'm laughing my ass off at some comments here.

[The Holy Goat]

I'm a Spanish myself, and I'm laughing my ass off at some comments here.

What does your nationality have to do with anything?