Jump to content

Why does Dany abhor slavery?


Maester Egg

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

She has no problem going back on her word, making those who she doesn't like suffer, has no problem sacking cities or conquest, and likely won't have a problem using dragons to reduce cities and castle to char, but she gets bothered by slavery. It pretty much seem a 4th wall breach to make her sympathetic to the audience despite all that.

I think this is it. Think about causes in the novels:

Ned: Honor! Not exactly a modern ideal.

Cat: Family, duty, honor. Again, not modern ideals.

Robb, Arya, Sansa, Martells, LSH: Revenge, clearly depicted as a negative in the novels.

Tyrion, Brienne: Must prove themselves to a family/society that refuses to accept them. This is something a modern reader would be able to identify with. The cause is individualistic, not socially concerned, though. Not the cause of a future ruler.

Jaime, Sandor, Theon: Redemption. Driving factor is individual, not social.

Bran: Physical-psychological healing. Purely individual.

Jon: Comes closest to Dany, in that he's trying to incorporate an alien population into the North, in order to defend the North. So far doesn't have the glam factor of freeing slaves, and GRRM has added the complication of breaking oaths. The "go, Jon," factor might come if the White Walkers ever make an appearance.

So far, Dany has the cause that ends all discussion. Whatever she does, so long as she's freeing slaves, it is all good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kimim said:

I think this is it. Think about causes in the novels:

Ned: Honor! Not exactly a modern ideal.

Cat: Family, duty, honor. Again, not modern ideals.

Robb, Arya, Sansa, Martells, LSH: Revenge, clearly depicted as a negative in the novels.

Tyrion, Brienne: Must prove themselves to a family/society that refuses to accept them. This is something a modern reader would be able to identify with. The cause is individualistic, not socially concerned, though. Not the cause of a future ruler.

Jaime, Sandor, Theon: Redemption. Driving factor is individual, not social.

Bran: Physical-psychological healing. Purely individual.

Jon: Comes closest to Dany, in that he's trying to incorporate an alien population into the North, in order to defend the North. So far doesn't have the glam factor of freeing slaves, and GRRM has added the complication of breaking oaths. The "go, Jon," factor might come if the White Walkers ever make an appearence.

So far, Dany has the cause that ends all discussion. Whatever she does, so long as she's freeing slaves, it is all good.

 

Interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Dany's experience compared to jenny Poole?

I would say there are thousands of miles away between them. 

Honestly, dany was arranged to marry a most powerful young horse lord as formal wife. People held her very high and showered her with great gifts. 

You are blinded by Viserys's some silly words. this is nowhere close to slavery. This is what arranged marriage is. 

Daeron also sold daenarys to martell for peace. So what? She is a slave? Or is this so cruel that she suffered a lot? 

 

Identical? No. Comparable at first? Absolutely, given she was reduced to contemplating suicide at one point, until she had her dragon dream and took control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, kimim said:

I think this is it. Think about causes in the novels:

Ned: Honor! Not exactly a modern ideal.

Cat: Family, duty, honor. Again, not modern ideals.

Robb, Arya, Sansa, Martells, LSH: Revenge, clearly depicted as a negative in the novels.

Tyrion, Brienne: Must prove themselves to a family/society that refuses to accept them. This is something a modern reader would be able to identify with. The cause is individualistic, not socially concerned, though. Not the cause of a future ruler.

Jaime, Sandor, Theon: Redemption. Driving factor is individual, not social.

Bran: Physical-psychological healing. Purely individual.

Jon: Comes closest to Dany, in that he's trying to incorporate an alien population into the North, in order to defend the North. So far doesn't have the glam factor of freeing slaves, and GRRM has added the complication of breaking oaths. The "go, Jon," factor might come if the White Walkers ever make an appearance.

So far, Dany has the cause that ends all discussion. Whatever she does, so long as she's freeing slaves, it is all good.

 

Right, because Dany is never judged by readers for her actions in slaver bay at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was definitely a part of her resonating with the fact that she was sold too, and being a very compansionate person. Seeing Astapor opened her eyes. And since she was only like 13, I think once she set those slaves free, she thought it would be just as easy to let all slaves free. I don't think she thought about it too much further than the inherint wrongness of it. We see in Dance that she never thought of what the slaves might do once free, and that some lived much better lives as slaves. We see it a bit in Storm too when she has thousands of free non fighting slaves following her.

Eventually it becomes something she kind of has to swallow, and ultimately she's going to have to forget about it entirely whenever she heads over to Westeros. Really it's what is holding her back, she fears for what the city will become when she leaves. That and I also think she herself is not ready to face Westeros, because expectations and such.

I do feel bad for Mereen because Dany totally messed the city up, and unless she burns it to the ground when she leaves it's going to turn into Astapor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

She has no problem going back on her word, making those who she doesn't like suffer, has no problem sacking cities or conquest, and likely won't have a problem using dragons to reduce cities and castle to char, but she gets bothered by slavery. It pretty much seem a 4th wall breach to make her sympathetic to the audience despite all that.

Why does that seem unrealistic? Even a man like Ned Stark who was okay with warfare that involves sacking and burning and raping but still find the act of killing children wrong. Why it did not feel a 4th wall breach for you when every Noble in that scene was okay with it but Ned is not? Did you feel the same way when Jaime saved Brienne because he pushes children out of the window and if he is capable of that why should he save a girl who was about to be fed to a bear? Because those are  what defines who they are. Because the world is not black and white.

Dany has consistently shown her compassion for people who are weak and cannot protect themselves. It would seem unrealistic only if you disregard her morals and values and see only her actions out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

I'm against slavery on an ideological basis, and I still probably wouldn't have beheaded Jorah - punished, yes; executed, no.  I thought Jorah's actions were particularly and delightfully ironic - slavers looking for slaves to steal then sell get sold as slaves themselves.  I know he didn't do it for ironic reasons or because he thought it was a suitable punishment for them.  I also know it's not really an effective way to end the slave trade, either - but I still enjoy and appreciate the delightful irony!  And in their current society, definitely a punishment suiting the crime, I think.

In our society, not so much.  Though, in all honesty, I wouldn't mind some of these human traffickers getting bought and sold themselves and we'll see how long they defend their "job."

I said nothing about execution. she should have had jorah do hard manual labor and or serve former slaves to atone for his previous crime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stag_legion said:

I said nothing about execution. she should have had jorah do hard manual labor and or serve former slaves to atone for his previous crime.

 

A crime he was already punished for? That he committed years before he even met her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that  annoys me with Danny's anti-slavery crusade is that the progressive medieval/pre modern girl tm is a trope I have seen several other times. And each time it is cringey. Now GRRM doesn't go as far as others with it, and thankfully the characters in the books have more nuances, subletries and are more interesting than what some of their fans present them as.

Daenerys actions are not presented as the obvious good that make things better and in fact often come with highly disastrous consequences. Additionally her motivation is not really that pure and it is mixed with wanting to prove herself as a great Targaryen, like the conqueror Aegon, or needing troops, and yes abhoring the practice of slavery as well. As a queen, we are let to wonder if she is losing it. Additionally the morality of her actions is complicated by her overall ambition to conquer and lord over Westeros, and her previous situation with the dothraki.

Other characters like the mentor (Ned) or Jon also often appear in other stories, with of course some differences.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She has no problem going back on her word, making those who she doesn't like suffer, has no problem sacking cities or conquest, and likely won't have a problem using dragons to reduce cities and castle to char, but she gets bothered by slavery. It pretty much seem a 4th wall breach to make her sympathetic to the audience despite all that.

She adheres to the normal laws of war in her world. She honoured her bargain with Yunkai, that they would be unharmed, if they released their slaves.

However, Meereen resisted and was taken by storm. A Sack is what happens, in that situation. The Sack was made worse by slaves revolting, and taking revenge on their masters, but that was not her doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

She adheres to the normal laws of war in her world. She honoured her bargain with Yunkai, that they would be unharmed, if they released their slaves.

However, Meereen resisted and was taken by storm. A Sack is what happens, in that situation. The Sack was made worse by slaves revolting, and taking revenge on their masters, but that was not her doing.

A sack is not something that just happens. Daenerys is responsible for it due to being the one to do it, and she is also responsible for providing the opportunity for the slaves to revolt.

Also, whenever there is mass slaughter of people, I don't care where age you are from, you will get a lot of people from that world, who will be appalled by it. Just because something happens, and people of the time can't stop it, does not mean they like it or accept it.

If the majority of people oppose the sack of their cities, I don't see how Daenerys actions are part of the normal laws of the world, whatever that means.

Of course the audience reading these books does not merely judge things by the standards of the time. But it is simply not true that actions like the sack of Meereen  wouldn't not had been seen negatively by the people of that world as well. That also applies to atrocities in Westeros. That something bad happens and society is unable to stop it, does not make it not immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She adheres to the normal laws of war in her world. She honoured her bargain with Yunkai, that they would be unharmed, if they released their slaves.

However, Meereen resisted and was taken by storm. A Sack is what happens, in that situation. The Sack was made worse by slaves revolting, and taking revenge on their masters, but that was not her doing.

A sack is not something that just happens. Daenerys is responsible for it due to being the one to do it, and she is also responsible for providing the opportunity for the slaves to revolt.

Also, whenever there is mass slaughter of people, I don't care where age you are from, you will get a lot of people from that world, who will be appalled by it. Just because something happens, and people of the time can't stop it, does not mean they like it or accept it.

If the majority of people oppose the sack of their cities, I don't see how Daenerys actions are part of the normal laws of the world, whatever that means.

Of course the audience reading these books does not merely judge things by the standards of the time. But it is simply not true that actions like the sack of Meereen wouldn't not had been seen negatively by the people of that world as well. That also applies to atrocities in Westeros. That something bad happens and society is unable to stop it, does not make it not immoral.

Until very recently, the accepted custom of war was that if a city sued for peace, a decent commander was expected to honour the terms, but if it resisted and was taken by storm, it faced a sack. Think of Berlin in 1945, for example. No commander could have restrained Sellswords and freed slaves who'd spent an entire day fighting their way into Meereen, and no doubt taken heavy casualties.

Dany did bring the situation under control within 24 hours. It took the Duke of Wellington a similar time to bring his men under control when Badajoz was taken by storm, and he was a very harsh disciplinarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She adheres to the normal laws of war in her world. She honoured her bargain with Yunkai, that they would be unharmed, if they released their slaves.

However, Meereen resisted and was taken by storm. A Sack is what happens, in that situation. The Sack was made worse by slaves revolting, and taking revenge on their masters, but that was not her doing.

A sack is not something that just happens. Daenerys is responsible for it due to being the one to do it, and she is also responsible for providing the opportunity for the slaves to revolt.

Also, whenever there is mass slaughter of people, I don't care where age you are from, you will get a lot of people from that world, who will be appalled by it. Just because something happens, and people of the time can't stop it, does not mean they like it or accept it.

If the majority of people oppose the sack of their cities, I don't see how Daenerys actions are part of the normal laws of the world, whatever that means.

Of course the audience reading these books does not merely judge things by the standards of the time. But it is simply not true that actions like the sack of Meereen wouldn't not had been seen negatively by the people of that world as well. That also applies to atrocities in Westeros. That something bad happens and society is unable to stop it, does not make it not immoral.

Until very recently, the accepted custom of war was that if a city sued for peace, a decent commander was expected to honour the terms, but if it resisted and was taken by storm, it faced a sack. Think of Berlin in 1945, for example. No commander could have restrained Sellswords and freed slaves who'd spent an entire day fighting their way into Meereen, and no doubt taken heavy casualties.

Dany did bring the situation under control within 24 hours. It took the Duke of Wellington a similar time to bring his men under control when Badajoz was taken by storm, and he was a very harsh disciplinarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

I'm against slavery on an ideological basis, and I still probably wouldn't have beheaded Jorah - punished, yes; executed, no.  I thought Jorah's actions were particularly and delightfully ironic - slavers looking for slaves to steal then sell get sold as slaves themselves.  I know he didn't do it for ironic reasons or because he thought it was a suitable punishment for them.  I also know it's not really an effective way to end the slave trade, either - but I still enjoy and appreciate the delightful irony!  And in their current society, definitely a punishment suiting the crime, I think.

In our society, not so much.  Though, in all honesty, I wouldn't mind some of these human traffickers getting bought and sold themselves and we'll see how long they defend their "job."

Do you mean Jorah sold slavers into slavery? I thought they were poachers. They still did something illegal, but I don't think it's comparable to being slavers. 

" He sold some poachers to a Tyroshi slaver instead of giving them to the Night's Watch."

" Ser Jorah had tried to swell the family coffers by selling some poachers to a Tyroshi slaver."

"He took from me all I loved, for the sake of a few lice-ridden poachers and his precious honor," Ser Jorah said bitterly. 

" My son loved that young wife of his. Vain woman. If not for her, he would never have thought to sell those poachers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might have indeed something to do she was raised in the beginning in Braavos/by Darry. 

At the end of AGOT she tries to justify to herself the fact her husband is raiding a village to get slaves so they can sell them for money. And that money is needed so that they can conqueror Westeros. Dany indeed shows here compassion towards some women (who were endangered of being raped) but she still thought (or wanted herself) to think it was necessary and "justified" to make those Lhazareen slaves. So can you really say she abhorred slavery at that moment? She at least showed compassion to some women and tried to save them from rape but she did not do anything against the fact they became property.

Some of her negative feelings towards slavery certainly arise from the fact she was "given" to Drogo. But at the same time her handmaidens were also slaves and given to her. And did she actually show any problem with that before SoS or did she ever tell them they were free and could leave her service? 

She still did no abhor slavery when she was Qarth and lived in Xaro's palace. 

However she really started to abhor and to act active against it from the moment she saw how some of those slaves were made into Unsullied in Astapor. She saw at that moment really how the slavery really was built on a lot of blood and cruelty. And she started to act against it (and she also needed to have men). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:
1 hour ago, SeanF said:

A sack is not something that just happens. Daenerys is responsible for it due to being the one to do it, and she is also responsible for providing the opportunity for the slaves to revolt.

Also, whenever there is mass slaughter of people, I don't care where age you are from, you will get a lot of people from that world, who will be appalled by it. Just because something happens, and people of the time can't stop it, does not mean they like it or accept it.

If the majority of people oppose the sack of their cities, I don't see how Daenerys actions are part of the normal laws of the world, whatever that means.

Of course the audience reading these books does not merely judge things by the standards of the time. But it is simply not true that actions like the sack of Meereen wouldn't not had been seen negatively by the people of that world as well. That also applies to atrocities in Westeros. That something bad happens and society is unable to stop it, does not make it not immoral.

 

Until very recently, the accepted custom of war was that if a city sued for peace, a decent commander was expected to honour the terms, but if it resisted and was taken by storm, it faced a sack. Think of Berlin in 1945, for example. No commander could have restrained Sellswords and freed slaves who'd spent an entire day fighting their way into Meereen, and no doubt taken heavy casualties.

Dany did bring the situation under control within 24 hours. It took the Duke of Wellington a similar time to bring his men under control when Badajoz was taken by storm, and he was a very harsh disciplinarian.

A sack is not something that just happens. Daenerys is responsible for it due to being the one to do it, and she is also responsible for providing the opportunity for the slaves to revolt.

Also, whenever there is mass slaughter of people, I don't care where age you are from, you will get a lot of people from that world, who will be appalled by it. Just because something happens, and people of the time can't stop it, does not mean they like it or accept it.

If the majority of people oppose the sack of their cities, I don't see how Daenerys actions are part of the normal laws of the world, whatever that means.

Of course the audience reading these books does not merely judge things by the standards of the time. But it is simply not true that actions like the sack of Meereen wouldn't not had been seen negatively by the people of that world as well. That also applies to atrocities in Westeros. That something bad happens and society is unable to stop it, does not make it not immoral.

 

Until very recently, the accepted custom of war was that if a city sued for peace, a decent commander was expected to honour the terms, but if it resisted and was taken by storm, it faced a sack. Think of Berlin in 1945, for example. No commander could have restrained Sellswords and freed slaves who'd spent an entire day fighting their way into Meereen, and no doubt taken heavy casualties.

Dany did bring the situation under control within 24 hours. It took the Duke of Wellington a similar time to bring his men under control when Badajoz was taken by storm, and he was a very harsh disciplinarian.

 

The comment "accepted custom of war" needs more justification and questioning than you think it does. Accepted by whom? How about those who don't accept it and condemn sackings or wars?

And by that criteria, slavery was an accepted custom in Slaver's Bay. What is happening is that those customs have those who accept them and those who don't. Those who don't, can't always stop it from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing I really don't understand about these threads is how far up their own asses people have to be to not see that any of the other good characters in this series would have had exactly the same emotional reaction to seeing what she saw in the plaza of punishment.  Barristan, for one, did (tap tap tap).  Even very cynical and jaded characters would see how evil what was going on there was.  They might think well, this is how it is.  what can I do?  I'm not risking my neck.

And no, it is not the case that one has to be born or raised in Westeros or braavos to see that people being arbitrarily tortured to death and killing babies and puppies is bad - It's self evident.  People in Essos know its wrong too.  Dany was just the first person who really had an opportunity to stop it.  The dragons were a powerful bargaining chip and she used them well.  

I also see no problem with her slowly over time getting more and more upset by atrocities she sees in conjunction with slavery.  That's not hypocrisy, that's learning, growing, and finally taking a moral Stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tijgy said:

It might have indeed something to do she was raised in the beginning in Braavos/by Darry. 

At the end of AGOT she tries to justify to herself the fact her husband is raiding a village to get slaves so they can sell them for money. And that money is needed so that they can conqueror Westeros. Dany indeed shows here compassion towards some women (who were endangered of being raped) but she still thought (or wanted herself) to think it was necessary and "justified" to make those Lhazareen slaves. So can you really say she abhorred slavery at that moment? She at least showed compassion to some women and tried to save them from rape but she did not do anything against the fact they became property.

Some of her negative feelings towards slavery certainly arise from the fact she was "given" to Drogo. But at the same time her handmaidens were also slaves and given to her. And did she actually show any problem with that before SoS or did she ever tell them they were free and could leave her service? 

She still did no abhor slavery when she was Qarth and lived in Xaro's palace. 

However she really started to abhor and to act active against it from the moment she saw how some of those slaves were made into Unsullied in Astapor. She saw at that moment really how the slavery really was built on a lot of blood and cruelty. And she started to act against it (and she also needed to have men)

 

Yes she needed men not 8000 ..she could have bought 3000 to 4000 and left for pentos ...but she didn't and she certainly could have left yunkai and meereen alone because she got her men in astopor .

 

 

 

Couple of chapters after the lhazareen village and death of drogo ..her first line to her people is this " you will be my khalasar and I see faces of slaves .I free you go if you need .if you stay it will be like brothers and sisters "

She says herself when speaking to xaro that Asropor opened the eye towards the slavery ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

Dany doesn't abhor slavery so much as she enjoys the power of liberating people from slavery. Which is all well and good-- but how far does this democratic movement extend..? The paradox inherent in this forced liberation, and her identity as a conquering liberator, is that she has to institute other forms of slavery, exercising her own means of barbarity, in order to enforce her agenda. Ultimately, the Targaryean mantra, with its insistence on their elitism, and god-given 'right' to the throne, contradicts the egalitarian ideals for which she purportedly strives:

 

According to this absolutist philosophy, dragons are better than 'the beasts of the field,' and 'lesser men' are not worthy of them. Who are these 'beasts of the field' and 'lesser men,' if not the slaves and their enslavers in those 'barbari[c]' cultures which she, by implication, considers inferior to her own? The flaw in her idealism is not giving much thought to the outcome of her benevolence. Once she's liberated these 'beasts' and 'lesser' beings, what status will they then be allowed/required to assume in her new society? 'A dragon is not a slave.' But, not all men can be dragons.

 

I think it's excellent to point some of these issues out. I have no doubt that Dany dislikes slavery. But, I would add, that I do not think one can arrive at the conclusion that slavery is bad and then still maintain any doctrine of absolutism, without being hugely inconsistent.

I do not expect Dany stop being an elitist as that what all the nobles in Westeros are, and we have to give them all a pass on that to some extent as that what they have been taught to believe and even the smallfolk probably buy into it (for example Gendry's reaction to Arya when he finds out she is a noble). But, hopefully, Dany will come to the realization that when one person purports to have absolute power over all others, it's probably eventually not going to turn out well. A well meaning absolutist leader will not always be around to protect the weak and the vulnerable.

Hopefully, her experience with slavery, in SB, will help to color some of her views about Westeros and RR. Ultimately, I view a dragon backed absolutist state to be a terrible concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Drogonthedread said:

 

 

Couple of chapters after the lhazareen village and death of drogo ..her first line to her people is this " you will be my khalasar and I see faces of slaves .I free you go if you need .if you stay it will be like brothers and sisters "

I forgot that. But still her handmaidens were her slaves at first and she never felt uncomfortable against that. And during the attack you still see her justify the actions of her husband

Just now, Drogonthedread said:

 

She says herself when speaking to xaro that Asropor opened the eye towards the slavery ..

Like I said, it was indeed the blood and cruelty of Astapor that opened her eyes. But I, personally, think the decision she made in Astapor was not completely made with the pure intention to free the slaves but also because she needed men. 

During her talk with Kraznys she really feels ill with distaste with what she is seeing. Afterwards she remembers how she felt when she was sold. But at the same time she keeps repeating that she must find a way to buy the 8000 men. ("There are eight thousand brick eunuchs for sale, and I must find some way to buy them" And she says really that she wanted 8000 men not 3000 or 4000). The whole situation is just more ambiguous than Dany saves the slaves or Dany did just do it for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...