Why does Dany abhor slavery?

[ravenous reader]

17 minutes ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

I feel like her whole slavery crusade came out of nowhere for her.

I always thought she was supposed to represent an 'incarnation,' or rather recapitulation of Aegon the Conqueror-- just played out in Essos. GRRM probably wanted to introduce some complexity to the character, so that she learn some invaluable lessons about ruling a diverse people and whatnot, so that by the time he's ready for her to make her way over to Westeros, we'll be semi-convinced that she's grown into this mature, wise ruler who's ready to assume the throne. Essos is her royal training ground, the rehearsal before the main event. It's a good thing she'll be able to fly away, when the time comes, as I don't think much of the Essos infrastructure will be left, after she's finished 'cleansing' it. Once that's done and dusted (probably turned into ash by the dragons, 'mountains blowing in the wind like leaves,' and so forth), it's onwards towards liberating Westeros from their illegitimate rulers!

48 minutes ago, Lord Ravenstark said:

She herself was ok with having slaves as long they were treated with a bit of humanity, even though herself was not above making threats and burning them.

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:

Quote

The line must be kept pure, Viserys had told her a thousand times; theirs was the kingsblood, the golden blood of old Valyria, the blood of the dragon. Dragons did not mate with the beasts of the field, and Targaryens did not mingle their blood with that of lesser men. Yet now Viserys schemed to sell her to a stranger, a barbarian.

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.

Lest the dilemma facing her become overly bleak, and threaten to overwhelm her (and us), enter Tyrion for some welcome comic relief:

Quote

Mhysa, they called her. Someone told him that meant Mother. Soon the silver queen would come forth from her city, smash the Yunkai'i, and break their chains, they whispered to one another.

And then she'll bake us all a lemon pie and kiss our widdle wounds and make them better, the dwarf thought. He had no faith in royal rescues.

It would seem, Tyrion is a bit more realistic, call it cynical, about these 'royal rescues'! That's why he'll never be king. 

[purple-eyes]

To be honest, those free bond servants in Pentos had no difference with slaves but name. Book already said so. And he had unsullied in his house too. 

It would be more persuading if she herself had some experience as slave or at least prisoner then she hated slavery. 

Like the widow of waterfront. She suffered and she knew it. 

But she is like Mary Sue of grrm so she would not even suffer a scratch. Not to mention slavery. 

It does sound a little bit unnatural. 

 

[Jak Scaletongue]

4 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

To be honest, those free bond servants in Pentos had no difference with slaves but name. Book already said so. And he had unsullied in his house too. 

It would be more persuading if she herself had some experience as slave or at least prisoner then she hated slavery. 

Like the widow of waterfront. She suffered and she knew it. 

But she is like Mary Sue of grrm so she would not even suffer a scratch. Not to mention slavery. 

It does sound a little bit unnatural. 

 

She *does* have some understanding about being bought and sold, not under the same circumstances, true, but it's not all that different either.  Jeyne Poole isn't a slave, but do you think that makes her feel better about being a "commodity" to LF, Roose, Tywin, Ramsay, etc.?  Yeah, she got a "good" husband instead of Ramsay, but that's just pure dumb luck.  And she knows it.  She acknowledges it when Drogo's being so gentle with her their first night.  She knows perfectly well that he doesn't have to make it easier for her - it does make it a bit easier for him, but he's a big man and she's a small girl.  He could easily overpower her, consummate the marriage, then roll over and go to sleep.  He doesn't have to make her feel comfortable.  That fact that he does is just pure luck for her.

[RobOsevens]

2 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

To be honest, those free bond servants in Pentos had no difference with slaves but name. Book already said so. And he had unsullied in his house too. 

It would be more persuading if she herself had some experience as slave or at least prisoner then she hated slavery. 

Like the widow of waterfront. She suffered and she knew it. 

But she is like Mary Sue of grrm so she would not even suffer a scratch. Not to mention slavery. 

It does sound a little bit unnatural. 

 

She was with in Pentos while she was young and naive before she had her eyes opened to the world and lost her innocence

She was sold to Drogo

Dany has suffered

And she is not perfect, all her time in Mereen shows that. She is learning to rule and making mistakes and as for not suffering a scratch I think you are going to learn otherwise whenever Winds is released.

 

 

[purple-eyes]

7 minutes ago, Jak Scaletongue said:

She *does* have some understanding about being bought and sold, not under the same circumstances, true, but it's not all that different either.  Jeyne Poole isn't a slave, but do you think that makes her feel better about being a "commodity" to LF, Roose, Tywin, Ramsay, etc.?

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? 

 

[Rippounet]

 

If you dig deep enough, Dany's ideals have nothing to do with slavery.

Slavery is pretty much a non-issue. In our world, most peoples and governments are openly anti-slavery (though, of course, reality is something else, but let's not go there). In Westeros, it's a serious offense. Even in Essos, it's actually controversial, as you have a major power being very much against it (Braavos) and a rising slave rebellion in Volantis.
So technically, Dany's crusade against slavery doesn't bring much to the overall plot, because she's only trying to impose what are common Westerosi perspectives on a handful of places nobody really cares about - except the people who live there... Tecnically our story is about Westeros, not Essos.

So what's this about? Power. And -to a lesser extent- justice.

I don't think anyone will deny that power is one of the main themes of the series. What it is, how it can be used, what are its limits, what duties it entails... etc.
Similarly, justice is also a main theme: divine justice, human justice, social and economic justice, whether revenge is just... etc.
Indirecty, Martin leads us to reflect on what are very political themes.

Now comes Dany. By rights she's pretty much the queen of the known world (either by conquest or inheritance). She's an absolute ruler with weapons of mass destruction that no one else possesses (dragons).
She's also a compassionate idealist.
So the real question here is whether anyone with her power can actually change the world for the better, or whether power is in itself evil.

And it's not like Dany is the only character with this philosophical issue. Aegon V "Egg" had pretty much the same one in his time. Only, Dany has what Egg always lacked: the dragons. So can she pull it off? Can she succeed where Egg failed, or will she lose herself in her quest?

So you see, it's not about slavery at all. Within the plot, slavery is just a literary device to ask deeper answers.
Some of them I'm sure are there, namely:
- Is magic inherently bad? (dragons, greenseers, the magic of R'hllor... etc). I'd argue magic is a metaphor for technology btw, but maybe that's just me.
- Is power, and most specifically, absolute power/rule inherently bad?
- Can one change the world without abusing power?

Other questions I'm not certain Martin actually asks (it's a question of interpretation):
- Is the feudal system fundamentally flawed?
- What kind of socio-economic system can be widely accepted by everyone (both the elite and the masses) and actually endure the test of time?
- Can radical change be implemented through the use of absolute power, or is any violent revolution doomed from the start?
- Do the ends justify the means?

And as far as the plot we're interested is concerned, the question that is asked, at this point in the series, is whether Dany will become a villain. Her crusade against slavery has already led her to some questionable decisions. Will it stop here, or will it get worse? What happens if she faces opposition once she reaches Westeros? Ultimately, this is about what Dany is willing to do to impose her idealism on the world. This is why Martin chose a non-issue (slavery), to show the readers that even the best intentions can have terrible consequences.

Remember: "The human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about."

 

[SeanF]

I feel like her whole slavery crusade came out of nowhere for her.

I always thought she was supposed to represent an 'incarnation,' or rather recapitulation of Aegon the Conqueror-- just played out in Essos. GRRM probably wanted to introduce some complexity to the character, so that she learn some invaluable lessons about ruling a diverse people and whatnot, so that by the time he's ready for her to make her way over to Westeros, we'll be semi-convinced that she's grown into this mature, wise ruler who's ready to assume the throne. Essos is her royal training ground, the rehearsal before the main event. It's a good thing she'll be able to fly away, when the time comes, as I don't think much of the Essos infrastructure will be left, after she's finished 'cleansing' it. Once that's done and dusted (probably turned into ash by the dragons, 'mountains blowing in the wind like leaves,' and so forth), it's onwards towards liberating Westeros from their illegitimate rulers!

She herself was ok with having slaves as long they were treated with a bit of humanity, even though herself was not above making threats and burning them.

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:

The line must be kept pure, Viserys had told her a thousand times; theirs was the kingsblood, the golden blood of old Valyria, the blood of the dragon. Dragons did not mate with the beasts of the field, and Targaryens did not mingle their blood with that of lesser men. Yet now Viserys schemed to sell her to a stranger, a barbarian.

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.

Lest the dilemma facing her become overly bleak, and threaten to overwhelm her (and us), enter Tyrion for some welcome comic relief:

Mhysa, they called her. Someone told him that meant Mother. Soon the silver queen would come forth from her city, smash the Yunkai'i, and break their chains, they whispered to one another.

And then she'll bake us all a lemon pie and kiss our widdle wounds and make them better, the dwarf thought. He had no faith in royal rescues.

It would seem, Tyrion is a bit more realistic, call it cynical, about these 'royal rescues'! That's why he'll never be king.

She's no democrat, for sure. She believes that she, and people like her, have a gods' given right to rule. But, that's pretty much taken for granted by every upper class protagonist, except maybe Arya. It's still better, in this world, to be ruled by people who care about their subjects, rather than people who are indifferent or vicious towards them.

[Jak Scaletongue]

4 minutes 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? 

 

First off - I'm not a fan of arranged marriages, period.  An arranged marriage IS being bought by a man and sold by your father.  Whether it's for money or alliances, or anything in between, the women are chattel to give away as a man sees fit. 

The rest I will respond to when I'm at home - cause I need to leave work now.

[Veloknight]

Because slavery is abhorrent.

Humans are not chattels.

[RobOsevens]

4 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

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 honestly can't see the relation between slavery and Dany's "arranged marriage" to Drogo?

She is what? 13 years old? She is married to Drogo a barbarian who doesnt even speak the same language or share similar culture with her. 

She is given to Drogo in exchange for an army

If she didn't take charge of the situation and make Drogo look at her as a wife instead of a brood mare then all of the fear she felt at her marriage and on her wedding night would have continued

[Rippounet]

16 minutes ago, ravenous reader 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.

Exactly. Within Dany's world view lie some fundamental contradictions. How she will deal with them will have tremendous consequences on the plot. Will she abandon idealism for some form of -disapointing- pragmatism, as her advisers will probably tell her to, or will her idealism lead her to embrace absolute power -with all the evils it entails?

It's actually a fascinating question, and I dearly hope Martin gets to finish his story. If he can give a satisfying answer to the questions he has asked, he may produce a masterpiece (so far, ASOAIF is essentially modern fantasy, but hardly a work of great literary scope).

[purple-eyes]

13 minutes ago, RobOsevens said:

You honestly can't see the relation between slavery and Dany's "arranged marriage" to Drogo?

She is what? 13 years old? She is married to Drogo a barbarian who doesnt even speak the same language or share similar culture with her. 

She is given to Drogo in exchange for an army

If she didn't take charge of the situation and make Drogo look at her as a wife instead of a brood mare then all of the fear she felt at her marriage and on her wedding night would have continued

Her marriage has no relation to slavery by the standard of that universe. Sure, by your modern standard it is bad.

She was "sold" to Drogo as his only wife, not a slave. And a slave does not get dragon eggs as wedding gifts.

Royal political marriage are just like that, and people are fine with it per GRRM.

Daenerys was given to Maron martell in exchange for peace. Daeron I planned to give his sister to Bravossi for sea power.

Even Arianne tried to give herself to Willas for power to counter her father and quentyn.

And this is the nature of political royal marriage, to exchange power and force, but this does not make them slave at all.

13 sounds young but in this universe, people do this all the time so we can not say much. You know Daenora was arranged and introduced to Aegon II for marriage at 6 years old.

And what is the problem of language and culture here for a royal political marriage? Was it an issue when Keira was married to Valaar? Daena married to somebody of Bravossi? and some dragon lady to somebody in Yi ti?

 

 

 

[ravenous reader]

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If he can give a satisfying answer to the questions he has asked

One would hope so. However, I fear she may just find that lemon tree, and 'bake us all a lemon pie,' as foreshadowed by Tyrion..!

Sansa, for one, has been wolfing those done (in fact, dear old Sweetpetyr had a whole crate of them lovingly shipped along with her to the Eyrie, as I recall); thus far, it doesn't seem to have relieved her plight.

Have you seen the 'lemon' threads? I wish I had the link offhand; there was a great exegesis on the symbolism of lemons in the story..a veritable 'lemonology'

Basically, leaves a sour taste!

[Rippounet]

35 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

One would hope so. However, I fear she may just find that lemon tree, and 'bake us all a lemon pie,' as foreshadowed by Tyrion..!

Have you seen the 'lemon' threads? I wish I had the link offhand; there was a great exegesis on the symbolism of lemons in the story..a veritable 'lemonology'

Basically, leaves a sour taste!

If you check the "Let's talk about lemongate" thread in my sig', you'll see I'm quite familiar with the lemon thing...

But I have to confess I'm not sure what you mean exactly... The way I see it, if Dany ever finds the lemon tree, either it's dead (symbolizing the fact that her innocence and happiness are lost forever), or not what she expected (it's different from her memories in one way or the other).
But whichever it is, I don't see Dany ever going back to live in that house with the red door. Which will make the memory very sour indeed.

[SeanF]

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.

Exactly. Within Dany's world view lie some fundamental contradictions. How she will deal with them will have tremendous consequences on the plot. Will she abandon idealism for some form of -disapointing- pragmatism, as her advisers will probably tell her to, or will her idealism lead her to embrace absolute power -with all the evils it entails?

It's actually a fascinating question, and I dearly hope Martin gets to finish his story. If he can give a satisfying answer to the questions he has asked, he may produce a masterpiece (so far, ASOAIF is essentially modern fantasy, but hardly a work of great literary scope).

Dany's coin is still spinning.

She could be one of the best people ever to rule a large chunk of the world. Or, she could be well-meaning, but ultimately counter-productive. Or, she could become a vicious tyrant, whose good qualities become swallowed up by self-righteous cruelty.

All of those outcomes are consistent with her story so far.

Or, maybe she'll be cut off in her prime. Dying to save the world, or cut down in a palace coup. The happiest outcome for her would be to perform great deeds, and then retire into wealthy obscurity.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

Why does Dany hate slavery... do you think it's okay? Do the people in both their world and ours who live without it think "hey, whatever floats their boats"?

Most educated and moral people are adamantly opposed to the concept of slavery. The difference is that Dany decides to do something about it, and is in a position to follow through. 

If I had the wealth and political standing to free even a few hundred enslaved people and set them up with better lives far away, I would like to think I would do it, regardless of the potential consequences to myself. 

We're not so different from her in terms of beliefs. Where Dany and I part company is that I would need to *know* I had actually improved life and created a solid foundation for everyone I freed. Dany more or less frees them and passes out Magic 8 Balls as she's turning and leaving them to fend for themselves. 

[Joanna of Casterly Rock]

I can't believe that some people are almost justifying slavery in order to prove that Dany is a bad person. 

She abhors slavery because she knows how it feels to be sold and because she saw how slaves are treated. And, maybe, just maybe because slavery is an awful thing.

[White Ravens]

She was raised as a Westerosi by Willem Darry for the first five years of her life and slavery is taboo in Westeros.  She then wandered with her Beggar King older brother for several years constantly listening to him obsess about Westeros and his right to rule it only to be sold into slavery by him.  She knows that it is immoral to buy and sell people into captivity and service and treated as property.

[Edd Tollett's One Vote]

Well slavery was a thing in our world too, someone has to be one of the first to stand up and point out that it's wrong. Dany has an advantage in recognising that slavery is bad since, as others have pointed out, she was raised (initially) in Braavos by a Westerosi. Sure when she was with Illyrio, she probably didn't think anything of the slavery when it seemed 'civilised' (I'm using the term loosely!), but when she saw what was happening while with the Dothraki and then with the unsullied? She's obviously going to have a problem. She's a moral individual and it's beyond what she's used to. Plus, she can probably empathise more than other nobles because she's been raised with nothing and was basically sold by her brother (whether that was what was done at the time or not - that's certainly how Dany sees it). She's got the power to stop it, plus it's initially beneficial to her (to get her army). So why wouldn't she?

[A spoon of knife and fork]

when I see threads like this i lose faith in humanity.