• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About HouseVelaryon

  • Rank
  1. Of course agree with you in that ISIS wives are definitely slaves but their situation is very different from Lola Eudocias. There are numerous examples of captured ISIS members themselves admitting that their "wives" were bought and sold and referring to them as "slave girls". It's clear that they considered them property which is the essence of slavery. And to be clear I'm not using cultural relativism as a blanket defense or saying this is something who someone from a different culture can never understand, however, studying the culture is required in order to see the underlying problem of the way she was treated which is a culturally flawed and systemic power dynamic between employer and employee. Just referring to the problem under the blanket definition of slavery and leaving it at that would end the conversation and wouldn't fairly illustrate how deeply rooted the problem that Lola Eudocia and many Filipinos who are put in similar situations overseas face. I feel very strongly about the word slavery because, similar to the South of the United States, we're no stranger to slavery in the Philippines. We were a Spanish colony for 300 years ending only when we were, as an entire country, literally purchased from Spain by the United States for $20 million in 1898 which was decades after slavery in the US was officially abolished in 1865. We then continued as a colony of the US until just 1946.
  2. It isn't exactly a term of endearment or a name. It isn't the equivalent of them saying "We will call you Lola now" which I believe is what people assume when they call it a "slave name" it's a term used to refer to everyone of a certain age. It's more the equivalent of Sir or Mam than it is to a nickname in that it's just something that goes before your name and is usually shortened. In the Philippines you don't call people older than you by their first names it's just not done. Lola is just a shortened form of Lola Eudocia. This even applies to people who you have never met before. For example if your dad introduced you to one of his friends named Jeff then to you that person would instantly be Tito Jeff or more commonly just Tito (which is the word for uncle). Lola was never meant to be her name it's just something that the author refers to her as as a sign of respect. Referring to her as Lola Eudacia is perfectly fine it's even more respectful than referring to her as just Eudocia, given her age. I think what the author's parents did and how Lola was treated was despicable. The reason why I'm hesitant to call it slavery is due to the fact that I think language is important and the term slavery is used when referring to people as property to be bought or sold. I don't think that the author or even his parents viewed Lola Eudocia as their property. I also don't think the author was trying to make himself seem like the hero at all because of the language he used being deliberately incendiary.
  3. Oh are they doing books? I was under the impression they were doing an adaptation of the game haha my bad!
  4. Geralt - Nikolaj Coster - Waldau Yennefer - Eva Green Triss - Jessica Chastain Ciri - Natalie Dormer Emhyr - Charles Dance (voiced the character in the game as well) Vesemir - Stellan Skarsgard Bloody Baron - Brendan Gleeson would be so perfect
  5. As someone from the country Alex and Lola are from, the Philippines, my opinion on it is that the media and even people here on this forum are going overboard with the whole slavery thing without understanding the context of what Lola's situation was. First of all, all this stupidity about "Lola" being her slave name is just outrage without knowledge. Lola is meant as a term of respect to those older than you. Literally it means grandmother. I call my grandmother Lola and if anyone in my family older than me heard me refer to her using her first name I would get a smack on the head. In the Philippines these things are very important. Lola was meant as a sign of respect and if the author ever called Lola by by her first name, he would have offended her, not because she was "brainwashed" but because in our culture that's the equivalent of saying he didn't respect her. Second, yeah even in our culture what his parent's did would have been considered wrong and this article is blowing up in the Philippines just as it is in the United States, although without the same vitriol towards the author. You have to understand the context before you pass judgment. The Philippines is an overpopulated but rather small country. We have around 120 million people living in a country that's less than half the size of Texas. We have a very high poverty rate as well. This means that labor is cheap since supply of labor is high and because of that there are many who seek out jobs as "Katulongs" or helpers for wealthier families. This is a legitimate and needed industry in the Philippines as millions would be unemployed without it. Many times these katulongs, particularly the ones assigned to take care of the children, become part of the family to the point where they are included in family photos. It really is in many cases a symbiotic relationship between employer and employee. The employer hires a katulong so that they are freed of more time from house work or taking care of the kids and are able to spend more time working. The employee requires the employer for free housing (most katulongs live in their employers house), free food, salary, and in some cases a free education as some employers will send their katulongs to college or pay for them to go back and finish high school. They can also resign from their jobs whenever they want and are in no way coerced into working for a particular family. Now going back to Lola's story, it's important to note that the author's views and opinions are shaped by the fact he grew up in the United States and thusly see what was happening to Lola as slavery due to the fact that he grew up in a country where that was really the only comparable thing that he would be shown. I'm not disputing the fact that Lola was maltreated and even in my country his parent's would probably be in jail but calling it slavery is trying to apply an American context to something that is very un-American. It's also unfair in this situation to blame the author for complicity. In a filipino household you do not ever question your elders. Ever. No matter how wrong you think they are. The same cultural mindset that required the author to call their helper "Lola" ironically also inhibited him from standing up to his mother in defense of her and, if you know the context, you can tell that this is something the author was grappling with. It would take too long for me to explain the context of how American and European Colonialism in the Philippines affected the power dynamic between employer and katulong but that played a factor as well.
  6. Tywin i feel is being underrated as a tactician and is actually at least on par with Ned. As a strategist and in terms of pure intelligence, on the other hand, he takes this one hands down. Stannis i think is by far the best tactician of the 3. Ned i think is on par with Tywin as a tactician but probably the least gifted at strategy.
  7. There is no textual evidence at all to support the fact that the Lords of the Vale would have accepted Robb Stark as their liege. Their main purpose for wanting to go to war with the Lannisters had practically nothing to do with Ned's death. It was, as has been pointed out by @Protagoras, the death of their liege at the rumored hands of the Lannisters that made them want to go to war. The Vale was way more likely to side with Renly. Lord Yohn Royce's son was with Renly. They wanted to aid the Starks because they knew between the Vale and the Starks the Lannisters would be trapped given the current placement of all the armies at that point. If they had to choose between Robb and Renly, there is (a little) evidence they would support Renly but no evidence they would support Robb. The Lords of the Vale, who are portrayed to be a quite proud bunch, would not go into supporting Robb as their liege but as their equal. This whole thing about everyone being loyal to the starks is way overblown as well. Even the Lords of the Riverlands were pretty much just roped into it out of necessity. Edmure himself didn't seem too happy about having to answer to his nephew. The only reason he had too was because he didn't really have much of an army left and the Frey's, who were at that point the strongest house in the Riverlands, were all too happy to swear to the Starks since they were operating under the assumption that Robb would marry one of them. Brynden Blackfish, I feel, enjoyed Robb being King cause it allowed him to undermine his nephew who should have been his Lord at that point. Had Catelyn not made the stupid decision to kidnap Tyrion which forced Tywin to make war on the Riverlands, I doubt they would have risen in favor of Robb at all even if Ned was executed.
  8. A series about the Dance of the Dragons would be amazing! It's filled with amazing characters, possibly/arguably even better than the fantastic GOT characters. You have a rogue prince in Daemon Targaryen, a strong female lead in Rhaenyra Targaryen, you get the Hightowers, Cregan Stark, Tyland Lannister, "Loyal" Addam Velaryon, Alyn Oakenfist, Criston Cole, Aemond Targaryen, King Aegon II, and the Sea Snake! It would probably be like a 2/3 season show at most but a shorter series allows for bigger actors in the roles. I, for one, would love to see Timothy Dalton as Lord Corlys.
  9. You're right i think about cavalry but I believe, in it's peak, the house did have a sizable infantry as I would imagine that a majority of Aegon the conqueror's army came from Driftmark which is both larger and more arable than the barren dragonstone. As per them not having a large naval force at their peak, I think it would take at least 100 or so ships to blockade the gullet as they did during the Dance. In present day i believe they still do have an infantry as Tyrion was surrounded by Velaryon spearmen at the Blackwater and, as for their current navy, I think there's a misconception as to how many ships they provided Stannis. Most people think they only provided 4 Warships to Stannis fleet but, if i'm not mistaken, the 4 that are referred to are just the 4 among the largest 9 warships of Stannis. If 1 house provides basically half of the largest ships on a 160 ship fleet then could we assume that they must have a proportionate amount of regular ships as well?
  10. @Leo of House Cartel Excellent reply! I was wondering about how militarily powerful they were on their own without the support of their cousins from House Targaryen. The reason for this is primarily because i was confused about the statement on the wiki and the AWOIAF book as well, i think, that "only the greyjoys could hope to match them at sea". Which given the fact that House Redwyne can float 200 warships it's a bit difficult to see how House Velaryon they could man that many ships given the size of driftmark compared to the arbor. Perhaps slightly less ships but with better sailors and faster ships?
  11. Are they up there with the hightowers as a de facto great house?