Jump to content

Why does Dany abhor slavery?


Maester Egg

Recommended Posts

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

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.

If Kraznys had simply treated it as an ordinary business transaction, rather than describing the horrors that the Good Masters like to inflict, with obvious relish at Dany's distaste, she'd probably have just bought a few hundred and moved on.

WRT her Khalasar, and handmaidens, they're never really going to be "as brothers and sisters". The social gulf between them is just too big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

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

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. 

Yes I would ask you to read that chapter again and chapter before that 

She says she must buy all the 8000 for what she has planned ...

But She made her decision and plan in the before chapter when she speaks with jorah ..

And with that plan she goes to deal with kraznys to buy 8000 ...

 

I dont deny she didn't try to justify what happened but I find it surprising people remember that but not what she does when she gets the power of her own ..her first command is to free people ..When irri offers to please dany ...she says she freed her and not a slave ...when doreah dies she holds her hand until she dies ..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

To be fair to Dany "beasts of the field" is Viserys' expression, not hers.

I think she views the Smallfolk as being like children, and she as being like their mother, who she has to rule for their own good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think she views the Smallfolk as being like children, and she as being like their mother, who she has to rule for their own good.

That simplistic view is not free from it's own set of problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she views the Smallfolk as being like children, and she as being like their mother, who she has to rule for their own good.

That simplistic view is not free from it's own set of problems.

Oh yes, and to a modern reader, it can seem very patronising.

I think Arya is the only noble character in the series who can make the mental leap of regarding a commoner as an equal. Not necessarily an equal in terms of wealth and power, but someone whose life and rights matter just as much as those of a noble.

All of the best noble characters, such as Ned and Catelyn, Daenerys, Edmure Tully, are paternalists. Most are pretty selfish, and a minority actively nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This maybe somewhat of a stretch but I have a feeling that while Dany has always been conscientiously opposed to slavery, she was initially never actually that outspoken about it and only did something about it to the scope of how it affected her personally like the way she freed the slaves of her Khalassar. The reason she later on becomes extremely zealous towards ending slavery on a grander scale may have to do with a desirearrow-10x10.png to fulfill prophecy.

In the House of the Undying she did see herself as a great liberator to thousands of slaves who all cheered at her and dubbed her their savior. 

Quote

Ten thousand slaves lifted bloodstained hands as she raced by on her silver, riding like the wind. “Mother!” they cried. “Mother, mother!” They were reaching for her, touching her, tugging at her cloak, the hem of her skirt, her foot, her leg, her breast. They wanted her, needed her, the fire, the life, and Dany gasped and opened her arms to give herself to them . .  Dany IV ACOK

 

Its possible that without this prophecy Dany may have just bought a slave army and left without a fuss. But because he now believed it was possible for her to make a difference, it may have given her a savior complex which was later on fueled from witnessing the inhumane treatment of slaves in Astapor and this was what gave her the motivation that set her on the course she is now on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Drogonthedread said:

Yes I would ask you to read that chapter again and chapter before that 

She says she must buy all the 8000 for what she has planned ...

But She made her decision and plan in the before chapter when she speaks with jorah ..

And with that plan she goes to deal with kraznys to buy 8000 ...

 

I dont deny she didn't try to justify what happened but I find it surprising people remember that but not what she does when she gets the power of her own ..her first command is to free people ..When irri offers to please dany ...she says she freed her and not a slave ...when doreah dies she holds her hand until she dies ..

 

(Actually, it might be easier to just give the more important quotes than just say read the chapters and try to guess what you mean; oh, look she hits her servant, aka Jorah, because she is mad about the actions of the slavers and because he brought her to Astapor, something she isn't happy about. This is actually for me an example of her as an ambiguous character. The fact she is upset about slavery and the cruel consequences makes her hitting a servant). 

Before the talk with Jorah, she address the fact she has to have 8000 men. She says further this (conning Kraznys) is the only way and she compares it to Rheagar. So I am not sure how this goes against my personal opinion that Dany did what she did partly because she needed some men. Like I already said, the whole situation is IMO just more ambiguous than Dany wanting to free slaves. 

But at the other side Astapor is the time she really starts to abhor slavery.

Dany makes indeed the right decision to stop Irri but there is actually still a problem with Irri and Jhiqui serving Dany. While Dany indeed freed those both girls and said it to them, I am not sure they consider themselves as free people. When Irri says "I am handmaid to the Mother of Dragons. It is great honor to please my khaleesi", this really shows how Irri is actually messed up by her years as slave IMO. (And the first time Irri please Dany, Dany did not stop her. It is only after she learns about the Unsullied she stops Irri). 

38 minutes ago, Kaibaman said:

This maybe somewhat of a stretch but I have a feeling that while Dany has always been conscientiously opposed to slavery, she was initially never actually that outspoken about it and only did something about it to the scope of how it affected her personally like the way she freed the slaves of her Khalassar. The reason she later on becomes extremely zealous towards ending slavery on a grander scale may have to do with a desirearrow-10x10.png to fulfill prophecy.

In the House of the Undying she did see herself as a great liberator to thousands of slaves who all cheered at her and dubbed her their savior. This may have given her a savior complex which was later on fueled by witnessing the inhumane treatment of slaves in Astapor and this led to her wanting to fulfill her destiny as this great liberator shown in the HOTU.

She does indeed feel uncomfortable about slavery in the chapter where Mirri's town is attacked but she still justifies or try to justify it in her own mind because she considers it as the price of the Iron Throne. Her desire to fulfill the prophecy might indeed one of the reasons she is so invested to be liberator. 

Edit: I think you must not forgot Arstan's opinion on the whole matter. He is in the whole situation the one voice who keeps speaking against slavery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tijgy said:

(Actually, it might be easier to just give the more important quotes than just say read the chapters and try to guess what you mean; oh, look she hits her servant, aka Jorah, because she is mad about the actions of the slavers and because he brought her to Astapor, something she isn't happy about. This is actually for me an example of her as an ambiguous character. The fact she is upset about slavery and the cruel consequences makes her hitting a servant). 

Before the talk with Jorah, she address the fact she has to have 8000 men. She says further this (conning Kraznys) is the only way and she compares it to Rheagar. So I am not sure how this goes against my personal opinion that Dany did what she did partly because she needed some men. Like I already said, the whole situation is IMO just more ambiguous than Dany wanting to free slaves. 

But at the other side Astapor is the time she really starts to abhor slavery.

Dany makes indeed the right decision to stop Irri but there is actually still a problem with Irri and Jhiqui serving Dany. While Dany indeed freed those both girls and said it to them, I am not sure they consider themselves as free people. When Irri says "I am handmaid to the Mother of Dragons. It is great honor to please my khaleesi", this really shows how Irri is actually messed up by her years as slave IMO. (And the first time Irri please Dany, Dany did not stop her. It is only after she learns about the Unsullied she stops Irri). 

She does indeed feel uncomfortable about slavery in the chapter where Mirri's town is attacked but she still justifies or try to justify it in her own mind because she considers it as the price of the Iron Throne. Her desire to fulfill the prophecy might indeed one of the reasons she is so invested to be liberator. 

Edit: I think you must not forgot Arstan's opinion on the whole matter. He is in the whole situation the one voice who keeps speaking against slavery. 

 

 

I could have quoted but I am on my mobile right now ...

I said her conversation with jorah right ...if you once go after her slaping and everything they have a conversation about why no one has attacked astopor and its defense and speaks about Rhaegar...

That moment dany decided she is going to attack astopor and free them ..that's what we see in the next chapter when she says i must have them all for what I intend to do  ...someone who only needs men will not ask for the boys who got their puppies and cut yesterday....and we see her asking again to jorah why god has created kings and queens if not to help those who are not capable..

The first time was not like the second time she was already in the middle of action and irri joined her .there was no conversation like the second time..anyways I  thought we were speaking about what dany tells her handmaidens and not about what irri thinks ...even missandei and greyworm still think themselves as slaves but that doesnt mean dany did noy frrr them ...they are not going to forget all brainwashing after waking next day ..it takes time .

Which brings us to the question you asked first ..does she tell them that they are free at the end of AGOT once she comes to her own power...yes she does...

 

 

And about prophecy I just like how much people go around things considering we have a POV and actually in the head of the character ...Imagine she is not a POv .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion if shes not willing to stay in Essos and see the whole campaign to it's next civilised state then shes selfish for acting out of feeling if shes going to leave it in ruins  for everyone to leave for Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Kaibaman said:
Quote

They were reaching for her, touching her, tugging at her cloak, the hem of her skirt, her foot, her leg, her breast. They wanted her, needed her, the fire, the life, and Dany gasped and opened her arms to give herself to them . .  Dany IV ACOK

 

Its possible that without this prophecy Dany may have just bought a slave army and left without a fuss. But because he now believed it was possible for her to make a difference, it may have given her a savior complex

The tone of that prophecy is interesting. Did you notice how Dany experiences liberating the slaves as a kind of erotic, ecstatic experience? I don't think the sexual overtones of the 'savior complex' is coincidental. What's that about..?!

She learned early on to seduce and conquer. Harnessing her sexuality was the way she took charge of Drogo. So, the act of 'giving herself to them,' far from being passive and selfless, is about Dany seizing power for herself, and claiming dominion over her subjects, just as much as it is about empowering them. There is a duality at play here.

Could this heady language also be a subtle indication that Dany, drunk on adulation, 'they wanted her, needed her, the fire, the life...' runs the risk of getting carried away, and enjoying her liberations a little too much? Similarly, your use of the phrase 'savior complex' implies that there is a compulsive, addictive component involved. When something feels that good, it's easier to ignore the dissenting voices, and to justify any casualties that may ensue...(which, strangely, is starting to remind me of Melisandre!)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

The tone of that prophecy is interesting. Did you notice how Dany experiences liberating the slaves as a kind of erotic, ecstatic experience? I don't think the sexual overtones of the 'savior complex' is coincidental. What's that about..?!

She learned early on to seduce and conquer. Harnessing her sexuality was the way she took charge of Drogo. So, the act of 'giving herself to them,' far from being passive and selfless, is about Dany seizing power for herself, and claiming dominion over her subjects, just as much as it is about empowering them. There is a duality at play here.

Could this heady language also be a subtle indication that Dany, drunk on adulation, 'they wanted her, needed her, the fire, the life...' runs the risk of getting carried away, and enjoying her liberations a little too much? Similarly, your use of the phrase 'savior complex' implies that there is a compulsive, addictive component involved. When something feels that good, it's easier to ignore the dissenting voices, and to justify any casualties that may ensue...(which, strangely, is starting to remind me of Melisandre!)

Unlike the rest of this thread this is an interesting and important analysis of Danys character.  Absolutely she needs to be very careful about why and how she expresses her identity as a savior of others. It is indeed a heady feeling to help others and it can become addictive.  It's all too easy to begin to see the world as black and white and Dany is absolutely prone to this, as are several other "righteous" characters such as Ned and Jon.  

I DO think that her time in Astapor and Mereen has/will temper that somewhat, in that she can see that the work is not done simply through revolution, but that people will continue to suffer unless the system changes to support the ideals that started revolution.  That doesn't mean she shouldn't act to help others, but it does me that some times she may have to decide to let some people die or suffer (she makes this decision when she closes Mereens gates to the Astapori refugees). 

I have often heard the criticism that Danys statement "dragons plant no trees" implies that she will turn to complete ruthlessness and forget about her desires to help others.  I disagree.  To me, her last chapter demonstrably does NOT mean that she has forgotten all she has learned.  She says, for the FIRST time, "to go forward I must go back" (rather than her previous mantra "if I look back I am lost").  She realizes that she must learn from her mistakes and that she cannot hope to save everyone (forgetting Hazzeas name).  When she says dragons plant no trees, that does not mean she is done helping people.  it means that she believes now as ever that her role in helping others will be done through her strengths as a revolutionary symbol rather than trying to change her character completely.  Embracing who she is while learning from her mistakes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Drogonthedread said:
2 hours ago, Tijgy said:

I could have quoted but I am on my mobile right now ...

 

Prefectly understandable then you could quote. (And it has been awhile I read those chapters. My reread is just now standing in the first chapters of SoS ^_^.

1 hour ago, Drogonthedread said:

I said her conversation with jorah right ...if you once go after her slaping and everything they have a conversation about why no one has attacked astopor and its defense and speaks about Rhaegar...

That moment dany decided she is going to attack astopor and free them ..that's what we see in the next chapter when she says i must have them all for what I intend to do  ...someone who only needs men will not ask for the boys who got their puppies and cut yesterday....and we see her asking again to jorah why god has created kings and queens if not to help those who are not capable..

The first time was not like the second time she was already in the middle of action and irri joined her .there was no conversation like the second time..anyways I  thought we were speaking about what dany tells her handmaidens and not about what irri thinks ...even missandei and greyworm still think themselves as slaves but that doesnt mean dany did noy frrr them ...they are not going to forget all brainwashing after waking next day ..it takes time .

Which brings us to the question you asked first ..does she tell them that they are free at the end of AGOT once she comes to her own power...yes she does...

And about prophecy I just like how much people go around things considering we have a POV and actually in the head of the character ...Imagine she is not a POv .

I actually think you managed almost to convince (however I think it is more the fact she says to him about the fact she cannot just close her eyes to those eight thousands men and the fact she identifies herself with Rheagar during the scene where she cons Kraznys and the slavers). 

But at the same time you have still her earlier insistence she must have an army and she has to find a way to find that army. And the Unsullied is that army. So I am not really sure we should exclude completely this think process before her talks with Jorah and we should consider her actions purely coming out of the desire to save people and she doesn't this purely out of a desire to save people and free of people (as a result of her distaste for the cruelty of the whole process, her identification with them and Arstan talking, ...) 

An other reason also might the fact they call her mother and she feels connected to them because they are the only ones who might be children ("It means 'Mother'. Dany felt a lightness in her chest. I will never bear a living child, she remembered.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rippounet said:

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

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.

After checking out 'lemongate,' it's funny to think I was advising you to delve into 'lemonology'..!

What I meant to imply with 'finding the lemon tree' and 'baking us a lemon pie' is that, on a textual level, the mention of lemons usually does not bode well, presaging bitterness and disappointment...(see Lost Melnibonean's post, below). Reality rarely measures up to expectations. And, even when it is sweetened, as in a lemon pie, the sweet may mask, but cannot wash out the sour (I think Stannis would agree, here!) On a meta-textual level, GRRM may never provide 'satisfactory answers to the questions he has posed.'

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 7:47 AM, Isobel Harper said:

I agree that lemons throughout the series symbolize truth, bitter truth.  Lemoncakes, however, are sweetened.  Sansa has a tendency to "sweeten" some truths with denial: denial (at first) about signs of Joffrey's true nature, creation of the UnKiss to soften the trauma of the BotBW-Hound scene in her memory, and soon (imo) denial about LF's involvement in Lysa's death and possible denial of his nature as well. 

Lemons may symbolize truth, as well as deception. Sansa is fond of self-deception. Varys, 'smelling of lemons,' deceives others. Chasing a lemon tree, or indulging in lemon pie, is a form of wishful thinking. Lemon trees are elusive, and lemon pies may harbor nasty surprises. I love how the Old Bear calls it like it is:

Quote

Is dragonglass made by dragons, as the smallfolk like to say?"

"The m-maesters think not," Sam stammered. "The maesters say it comes from the fires of the earth. They call it obsidian."

Mormont snorted. "They can call it lemon pie for all I care. If it kills as you claim, I want more of it."

 

This is Lost Melnibonean's fun post:

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 9:49 AM, Lost Melnibonean said:

Well, assuming Jon Snow is the Trueborn son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, he could be this "dragon," and since his is the song of ice and fire, he would seem to be the principal protagonist, with Daenerys set up by Daenerys to be the red herring. At least she'll be able to add a little lemon juice, but that might not be such a good thing...

The George apparently forgot to change her dialect several chapters later, but I dont think he forgot to remove the lemon tree. I think he transplanted it. The George obviously had a reason for putting that lemon tree outside Daenerys's window, since he left it there after he moved her backstory to Braavos.

But what was the purpose of the lemon tree? Well, Im glad you asked . . . You see, the lemon, of course, is defined by its yellow color and sour taste. In addition to its use as food and drink, lemons can be used to clean. After a brief review of the use of lemons in art and literature, my understanding is that the lemon symbolizes bitterness and disappointment.(Exhibit A would be the Lemon Tree, the Israeli film from 2008, in which a Palestinian attempts to stop her neighbor, who happens to be the Israeli Defense Minister, from destroying the family's lemon grove.

 

Hidden Content

 

The lemon is also used to symbolize power. The fruit appears to have originated in South Asia. Although they were known in Ancient Rome, they were not widely known in Europe until the tenth century. The first significant cultivation of lemons in Europe did not happen until the very end of the Middle Ages. Since they had to be imported to medieval Europe, lemons became associated with wealth and power. This symbolism of wealth and power seems to have been The George's intention when he had

 

Hidden Content

 

Fans of Sansa who think her weakness for lemon cakes is a symbol of her innocence and purity should take note and be wary. They might be comforted at least to note that within the Church, the lemon is considered a symbol of fidelity. But I believe The George included the lemon tree to foreshadow Daenerys's ultimate bitterness and disappointment. 

When we see lemons, things don't usually end well... In Sansa I, Game 15, she was looking forward to lemon cakes in the queen's wheelhouse, but her day ended with her prince's loathing and contempt. Samwell's early childhood went from snitching lemon cakes to contempt, abuse, and banishment by his father. In Sansa II, Game 29, Sansa went from enjoying lemon cakes with Joffrey at the feast following the first day of jousting to being escorted back to her cell by the Hound. In Sansa III, Game 44, Sansa and Jeyne (poor Jeyne) looked for lemon cakes in the kitchen, but at the end of the chapter learned her father was sending back to Winterfell. Sansa shared lemon cakes with the Tyrells before being forced to wed the imp. Before donning the ugly little girl's face, the kindly man gave a girl a drink so tart it was like biting into lemon. That made "no one" think of Arya's sister, and Sansa's fondness for lemon cakes.

In Arya V, Game 65, Arya offered to trade a fat pigeon for a lemon, but ened up at her father's execution. Jeor Mormont drank lemon in his beer every day. He still had his own teeth but his men mutinied and murdered him. At Bitterbridge, Renly's bannermen feasted on lemon cakes. Of course, Renly's campaign ened shortly thereafter. As Davos sailed with Stannis's fleet into Blackwater Bay, he observed Aegon's High Hill, dark against a lemon sky. That's an odd description for a sky, no? As Davos turned downstream, the mouth of the Blackwater Rush had turned into the mouth of hell.

At Edmure's wedding feast Catelyn noted that Ryman Frey had bathed in lemon water but failed to mask his sour sweat, and that Roose smelled sweeter but no more pleasant. The Feast did not end on a happy note. At Joffrey's wedding feast Tyrion had a slice of pigeon pie covered with a spoon of lemon cream. A few paragraphs later he stood accused of regicide. Cersei drank lemon water so tart she had to spit it out the morning she learned that Tyrion had murdered their father.

Lem Lemoncloak just reeks of bitterness and disappointment, and I am glad I'm not associated with House Dalt of Lemonwood. Doran's Water Gardens smell of lemons and blood oranges. Anybody think Dorne is going end up happy with their blood and fire? In The Queenmaker, Arianne noticed that Darkstar preferred lemon water to summer wine, and she served lemonsweet to Myrcella before Darkstar cut off Myrcella's ear amidst lemon orchards watered by a spider's web of old canals.

Stannis enjoys boiled eggs and lemon water for breakfast, and, well, I think we all know his end will be bitter and disappointing. In Jon IV, Dance 17, Stannis offers lemon water to Jon. Wisely, Jon refuses. Stannis drinks more.

The merry band aboard the Shy Maid enjoy a pike with lemon juice, but come on, who doesn't eat Pike without lemon, and Ysilla was from Dorne. Still, I woulda passed. Tyrion suspected Yezzan was drinking lemon water as the yellow whale bid on him and Penny. Tyrion served Nurse lemonsweet with the mushrooms from Illyrio's garden.The Green Grace accepted a goblet of sweetened lemon juice from the Queen's Hand. 

Oh, and dig this... Daenerys's terrace in Mereen had lemon trees... Go figure.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

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.

I don't really see any inconsistency here.  Political doctrine in Westeros is based on the idea and ideals of medieval kingship, that the monarch and by extension aristocracy have a divine and hereditary right to rule but that rule involves a duty to protect their people from harm.  Dany buys into both parts of that philosphy, scorning Robert as "no true king" and asserting that "a true king does justice" and nothing gets under her skin and arouses her ire more than rulers using their power to inflict cruelty and suffering on their people.  This doesn't have to sit with an early modern or modern political philosophy that the consent of the governed, in however limited a sense, is required to justify rule or that the authority of the crown should be formally limited by checks and balances.

After all, its worth remembering that in story Westeros has had thousands of years (?) with slavery abolished but thoughout that time has had absolute monarchies in the pre-Targ 7K and Targ & post-Targ realm along with a feudal system and what looks to be a system of serfdom.  It's also worth noting that abolishing slavery and some form of representative government don't necessarily go hand in hand in the real world - medieval England had abolished slavery but had an absolutist monarchy for hundreds of years, alongside a working feudal system, until the growth of parliament in the 16th century for one, Tsarist Russia managed to emancipate their serfs, who were as close to slaves as to make little difference, in the 1860s without having any intention of abandoning an absolutist philosophy for another, and the founding fathers of the USA managed to combine what was an, for the time, admirably progressive concept of a limited representative democracy, with widespread slave-ownership dominating the ecoonomy of a number of states.

So to me the idea of Dany expecting to restore her dynasty and rule absolutley while acting in the interests of her people isn't a contradiction or inconsistency, it's all part of a world view and political philosophy that sees paternalism as both natural and a positive thing for the shape of the state and society.  It may not sit too comfortably with a readsrship who I imagine mostly live in representative democracies but it seems consistent in the context of the world GRRM has chosen to portray and not out of place compared with some real world examples.

You mentioned a whiggish hope in another thread that GRRM would edge towards a more limited or constitutional monarchy but I haven't seen any hints of that in the story and although monarchy and absolute power in one person are systems of government we have long since moved away from (unless your North Korean) Planetos seems firmly grounded in the medieval world and its ideas of politics and the social order.  We've had a Great Council in Westeros at best but only when the position of King was vacant so maybe a Targaryen restoration would involve some kind of Magna Carta moment but there are no indications that anyone in story is thinking along those lines. 

I know GRRM doesn't do the old "Good King Aragorn" routine but that, rather than any kind of progressive reform or development of the state, seems the best we can expect with regard to good governance. IMO the story is big enough already without political philosophy becoming a part of characters' motivations and GRRM is more interested in posing questions about the nature of power and the responsibilities and problems of wielding it than the nature of political systems, the answer to which is much simpler.

3 hours ago, Tijgy said:

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

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. 

As long as we bear in mind that Astapor is part of a journey not the whole story.  Astapor is famed for training Unsullied which is indeed why she goes there but her next step is Yunkai which is famous for training bed slaves IIRC.  There is no ambiguity about Yunkai - she demands they release all their slave and gains a ragtag following of noncombatants, thousannds of useless mouths to feed with no military value at all.

I would also question the ambiguity of Astapor.  There is a reason she initially pretended to buy all the Unsullied, including the ones in training who at a very young age had no military value, and why she eliminated the slave-owners as a body.  She is destroying the entire system that is designed to enslave, mutiliate and train the Unsullied.  Her initial reason in going to Astapor was to buy an army but what she finds when she arrives is the game-changer.  And after Astapor she heads to Yunkai and Meereen because she now has a very different perspective to when she was a pampered guest in Illyrio's mansion in Pentos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I don't really see any inconsistency here.  Political doctrine in Westeros is based on the idea and ideals of medieval kingship, that the monarch and by extension aristocracy have a divine and hereditary right to rule but that rule involves a duty to protect their people from harm.  Dany buys into both parts of that philosphy, scorning Robert as "no true king" and asserting that "a true king does justice" and nothing gets under her skin and arouses her ire more than rulers using their power to inflict cruelty and suffering on their people.  This doesn't have to sit with an early modern or modern political philosophy that the consent of the governed, in however limited a sense, is required to justify rule or that the authority of the crown should be formally limited by checks and balances.

 

Ok, let's start with the nature feudal monarchy here. Despite the claims, of some Danystans, feudal monarchy was not based on absolutism. The nature of feudalism was grounded on the concept of there being reciprocal duties between vassals and liege lords ie "the feudal contract". Now these obligations might have often been ignored and the use of force might have often settled issues, but the notion of these reciprocal obligations were always there.

The idea that a monarch may do as they please, aka absolutism, was really something that appeared toward the end of the middle ages, and then when it did, it was often political propaganda

Let's ask ourselves a fundamental question here. Did Dany free slaves because it merely made her feel good about herself or did she believe that people have some fundamental set of rights that nobody can take away from them? If it was for the second reason, then I do not know how she can be an absolutist. Thusly, the issues of slavery and RR are analytically linked. If she just cannot see the link, then she rightly ought to take criticism for that.

If Dany believes that "true king" does justice, then what exactly does Dany think ought to happen to a king that fails to deliver justice? Nothing perhaps, so long as he is the "rightful" and true king? Well, the answer here is that Dany really doesn't know as she had never really thought about it. If she might have known more about Westerosi history, she might have given more thought about this question.

Also, I think it's not quite correct to believe that democracy or the idea of there being limitations on rulers had it's origins in the Enlightenment. I'd argue that it goes back before that. That many of those ideas do in fact have there beginnings in the feudal era or even before then.

Finally, I would say that while a formal institution is not required in order for the view that a king's power is not absolute to prevail, it sure would help.

Quote

After all, its worth remembering that in story Westeros has had thousands of years (?) with slavery abolished but thoughout that time has had absolute monarchies in the pre-Targ 7K and Targ & post-Targ realm along with a feudal system and what looks to be a system of serfdom.  It's also worth noting that abolishing slavery and some form of representative government don't necessarily go hand in hand in the real world - medieval England had abolished slavery but had an absolutist monarchy for hundreds of years, alongside a working feudal system, until the growth of parliament in the 16th century for one, Tsarist Russia managed to emancipate their serfs, who were as close to slaves as to make little difference, in the 1860s without having any intention of abandoning an absolutist philosophy for another, and the founding fathers of the USA managed to combine what was an, for the time, admirably progressive concept of a limited representative democracy, with widespread slave-ownership dominating the ecoonomy of a number of states.

You know, I don't think the nobility saw the Targaryen monarchy as being absolutist, the contrary assertions of the Khaleesi National Party notwithstanding. And I think we have plenty of indications that was not the case.

Also I don't think England had an absolutist monarchy for hundreds of years as you assert. If it did, then it was most likely after William the Conquerors conquest and I don't think that notion really lasted long. So I think your assertion here is highly suspect.

It may be true that absolutist governments sometimes abolish slavery, and it may be true that some representative governments permit it. I don't deny this fact of the RW. I argue instead that absolutism isn't really consistent with an anti-slavery position because I think in general that being anti-slavery is dependent upon the notion that people have rights that cannot be taken away from them. The whole notion of there being a monarch who may do as he pleases is highly inconsistent with that. Just as having a liberal democracy is highly inconsistent with permitting slavery. The founders of the US made some pretty bold proclamations about people's rights and then turned around and harmed their own credibility and cause by permitting slavery. I think everyone understands that the rhetoric didn't match the reality and that was a problem. I think the founders even understood, to some extent, the irony and the contradiction.

Quote

So to me the idea of Dany expecting to restore her dynasty and rule absolutley while acting in the interests of her people isn't a contradiction or inconsistency, it's all part of a world view and political philosophy that sees paternalism as both natural and a positive thing for the shape of the state and society.  It may not sit too comfortably with a readsrship who I imagine mostly live in representative democracies but it seems consistent in the context of the world GRRM has chosen to portray and not out of place compared with some real world examples.

But see here is the thing: I don't expect Dany to implement some kind 20th Century representative democracy. I am well aware that Westeros is a long way off from that. And I don't ding characters in the book for not believing in popular democracy. However, the absence of a 20th Century representative monarchy does not imply absolutism. After reading your comments here, I have to wonder if you even know what absolutism really was or how feudal monarchies often operated both in theory and in practice. At it's core, absolutism is the idea that the monarch is entitled to do as he pleases. That just wasn't how many people in the feudal world saw things. That's not how monarchy in the feudal world often operated.

Finally, if Dany tries to restore her dynasty and proclaim that the rebels were guilty of treason, while waging some war on behalf of slaves, then that is a contradiction.

Quote

You mentioned a whiggish hope in another thread that GRRM would edge towards a more limited or constitutional monarchy but I haven't seen any hints of that in the story and although monarchy and absolute power in one person are systems of government we have long since moved away from (unless your North Korean) Planetos seems firmly grounded in the medieval world and its ideas of politics and the social order.  We've had a Great Council in Westeros at best but only when the position of King was vacant so maybe a Targaryen restoration would involve some kind of Magna Carta moment but there are no indications that anyone in story is thinking along those lines

You know though, I think you are thinking that the idea of constitutional monarchy had its origin in the Enlightenment. But, I think it's real origin is much more ancient and goes back at least to the feudal era. As explained earlier, it wasn't the case that people in the feudal era thought the king could do just whatever the hell he wanted.

The British nobles that forced the Magna Carta weren't thinking in terms of some grand revolution. In many ways, their intentions were pretty selfish. Nevertheless, whatever their reasons, putting limits on the monarch proved important.

I'd say that RR could prove to be very important to the course of Westerosi' political development, particularly if the old rebel houses refuse to swear to Dany, until she acknowledges that Aerys was rightly removed, because that would signal that a monarch cannot do as they please, even though may have great power. Such an agreement by Dany could be as significant as the Magna Carta.

Also, had Rhaegar been successful in deposing Aerys, and then had got approval from the Great Council, then that too would have been significant as it would have set precedent on how to deal with tyrant. And it probably would have given more power to the Great Council, which Rhaegar thought he needed in order to legitimize his coup and ultimately his rule.

Also, Westeros is about to get hit with a great calamity. Such calamities often lead to important political changes. Whomever takes the throne, may very well have somewhat of a "clean slate" in order to make important changes. Also, there is the fact that both Jon and Dany have been to exposed to other cultures that pick their leaders in a manner different from Westeros. I have to wonder whether this was done for a reason.

I do not think Dany or Jon, or whomever was to take the throne, would implement some kind of modern democracy. I think that would be silly. However, I do not buy your idea that Westeros must just revert to the status quo. Certainly, the Great Council could be called more often. And certainly, the removal of Aerys could remain as precedent which would be significant as well.

Quote

I know GRRM doesn't do the old "Good King Aragorn" routine but that, rather than any kind of progressive reform or development of the state, seems the best we can expect with regard to good governance. IMO the story is big enough already without political philosophy becoming a part of characters' motivations and GRRM is more interested in posing questions about the nature of power and the responsibilities and problems of wielding it than the nature of political systems, the answer to which is much simpler.

Why oh why, does Ned Stark refuse to take part in the murder of Dany? Could it be that Ned believes that Robert's order to have Dany murdered is not legitimate. And if so, couldn't we call that Ned's "political philosophy"?

Why does Barristan decide to fight for Aerys, knowing full well what creep Aerys was? Could it be that Barristan had believed that he was bound by duty to fight for Aerys, no matter what Aerys did. And if so, could we say that was Barristan's "politcal philosophy"?

And why does Joffrey say, "You can't talk to me that way. The king can do as he likes." Could it be that Joffrey has a belief about the nature of the power of the monarch? You know, a "political philosophy".

And why do the nobility, during the reign of Aegon V, speak of their "rights and liberties"? Could it be they had a political philosophy, or at least advancing one in order to serve their own interest?

Why do I think your conclusion here might be a bit-o horseshit?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was "sold" to Drogo. Though she only seems to find that distasteful when it suits her, like when she chooses to see herself as better than the people around her. She never seems to remember the fact that Drogo "purchased" her when she's remembering how fantastic her true love with him was.

Sold and purchased are in quotes because the Dothraki are evidently a completely barbarous people who don't uphold a deal unless it suits them. Like someone who never pays their bar tabs. Scum of the earth, truly.

Not exactly. The Dothraki gave 'presents' and received them. Dany was a present to Khal Drogo. Similarly, the Dothraki would present captured enemies to slaver cities in turn for gifts of gold and jewels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Ok, let's start with the nature feudal monarchy here. Despite the claims, of some Danystans, feudal monarchy was not based on absolutism. The nature of feudalism was grounded on the concept of there being reciprocal duties between vassals and liege lords ie "the feudal contract". Now these obligations might have often been ignored and the use of force might have often settled issues, but the notion of these reciprocal obligations were always there.

The idea that a monarch may do as they please, aka absolutism, was really something that appeared toward the end of the middle ages, and then when it did, it was often political propaganda

Let's ask ourselves a fundamental question here. Did Dany free slaves because it merely made her feel good about herself or did she believe that people have some fundamental set of rights that nobody can take away from them? If it was for the second reason, then I do not know how she can be an absolutist. Thusly, the issues of slavery and RR are analytically linked. If she just cannot see the link, then she rightly ought to take criticism for that.

If Dany believes that "true king" does justice, then what exactly does Dany think ought to happen to a king that fails to deliver justice? Nothing perhaps, so long as he is the "rightful" and true king? Well, the answer here is that Dany really doesn't know as she had never really thought about it. If she might have known more about Westerosi history, she might have given more thought about this question.

Also, I think it's not quite correct to believe that democracy or the idea of there being limitations on rulers had it's origins in the Enlightenment. I'd argue that it goes back before that. That many of those ideas do in fact have there beginnings in the feudal era or even before then.

Finally, I would say that while a formal institution is not required in order for the view that a king's power is not absolute to prevail, it sure would help.

You know, I don't think the nobility saw the Targaryen monarchy as being absolutist, the contrary assertions of the Khaleesi National Party notwithstanding. And I think we have plenty of indications that was not the case.

Also I don't think England had an absolutist monarchy for hundreds of years as you assert. If it did, then it was most likely after William the Conquerors conquest and I don't think that notion really lasted long. So I think your assertion here is highly suspect.

It may be true that absolutist governments sometimes abolish slavery, and it may be true that some representative governments permit it. I don't deny this fact of the RW. I argue instead that absolutism isn't really consistent with an anti-slavery position because I think in general that being anti-slavery is dependent upon the notion that people have rights that cannot be taken away from them. The whole notion of there being a monarch who may do as he pleases is highly inconsistent with that. Just as having a liberal democracy is highly inconsistent with permitting slavery. The founders of the US made some pretty bold proclamations about people's rights and then turned around and harmed their own credibility and cause by permitting slavery. I think everyone understands that the rhetoric didn't match the reality and that was a problem. I think the founders even understood, to some extent, the irony and the contradiction.

But see here is the thing: I don't expect Dany to implement some kind 20th Century representative democracy. I am well aware that Westeros is a long way off from that. And I don't ding characters in the book for not believing in popular democracy. However, the absence of a 20th Century representative monarchy does not imply absolutism. After reading your comments here, I have to wonder if you even know what absolutism really was or how feudal monarchies often operated both in theory and in practice. At it's core, absolutism is the idea that the monarch is entitled to do as he pleases. That just wasn't how many people in the feudal world saw things. That's not how monarchy in the feudal world often operated.

Finally, if Dany tries to restore her dynasty and proclaim that the rebels were guilty of treason, while waging some war on behalf of slaves, then that is a contradiction.

You know though, I think you are thinking that the idea of constitutional monarchy had its origin in the Enlightenment. But, I think it's real origin is much more ancient and goes back at least to the feudal era. As explained earlier, it wasn't the case that people in the feudal era thought the king could do just whatever the hell he wanted.

The British nobles that forced the Magna Carta weren't thinking in terms of some grand revolution. In many ways, their intentions were pretty selfish. Nevertheless, whatever their reasons, putting limits on the monarch proved important.

I'd say that RR could prove to be very important to the course of Westerosi' political development, particularly if the old rebel houses refuse to swear to Dany, until she acknowledges that Aerys was rightly removed, because that would signal that a monarch cannot do as they please, even though may have great power. Such an agreement by Dany could be as significant as the Magna Carta.

Also, had Rhaegar been successful in deposing Aerys, and then had got approval from the Great Council, then that too would have been significant as it would have set precedent on how to deal with tyrant. And it probably would have given more power to the Great Council, which Rhaegar thought he needed in order to legitimize his coup and ultimately his rule.

Also, Westeros is about to get hit with a great calamity. Such calamities often lead to important political changes. Whomever takes the throne, may very well have somewhat of a "clean slate" in order to make important changes. Also, there is the fact that both Jon and Dany have been to exposed to other cultures that pick their leaders in a manner different from Westeros. I have to wonder whether this was done for a reason.

I do not think Dany or Jon, or whomever was to take the throne, would implement some kind of modern democracy. I think that would be silly. However, I do not buy your idea that Westeros must just revert to the status quo. Certainly, the Great Council could be called more often. And certainly, the removal of Aerys could remain as precedent which would be significant as well.

Why oh why, does Ned Stark refuse to take part in the murder of Dany? Could it be that Ned believes that Robert's order to have Dany murdered is not legitimate. And if so, couldn't we call that Ned's "political philosophy"?

Why does Barristan decide to fight for Aerys, knowing full well what creep Aerys was? Could it be that Barristan had believed that he was bound by duty to fight for Aerys, no matter what Aerys did. And if so, could we say that was Barristan's "politcal philosophy"?

And why does Joffrey say, "You can't talk to me that way. The king can do as he likes." Could it be that Joffrey has a belief about the nature of the power of the monarch? You know, a "political philosophy".

And why do the nobility, during the reign of Aegon V, speak of their "rights and liberties"? Could it be they had a political philosophy, or at least advancing one in order to serve their own interest?

Why do I think your conclusion here might be a bit-o horseshit?

 

Notwithstanding your typically holier-than-thou attitiude, no I don't think that Dany or any other potential monarch will formally limit the power of the crown, that there have been any hints in story that any of the nobiity are thinking of a more formalised arrangement to codify rights and responsibilities, that Dany or any other monarch would do anything other than restore the status quo or that there is any contradiction between a pseudo-medieval monarch (let's saty Dany) believing in her right to rule while considering that right obligates her to protect her subjects without curtailing her own authority and also considering enslavement and deliberate infliction of cruelty to be ahorrent.

I have to wonder why your post brought up absolutism if you are so keen to lecture on the difference between feudalism and absolutism.  If you believe she would establish a monarchy in Westeros on a different basis to her predecessors rather than restoring the status quo, in other words increase the power of the crown, then you might have a point but I'm not at all sure you were really making this point, merely saying that the restoration should see a limit on the power of the crown that didn't previsouly exist.  Perhaps you could have left out the word absolutist in that case but, no, I don't see any characters in story musing over or actively talking about changing the nature of the state and the relationship between the crown and the different estates of the realm.  However beneficial you may think this would be it isn't on page.  Anything there you consider horseshit?  Or are you just unable to get through the day without taking a swing at someone?

Not allowing human beings to be owned as propertly isn't incompatible or inconsistent with the idea of monarchy either in story as thousands of years of Westerosi history shows nor out of it either as plenty of real world examples show (and despite your attempt to show this as a flaw in Dany's character or a limitation of her imagination or intelligence it's entirely consistent with the world GRRM is writing).  You may hope for this to change in story but there isn't any political thinking moving towards limiting the monarchy or changing the institutions of state and their relative powers.  I mean Barristan simply goes looking for a worthy monarch to obey without question rather than campaigning to reform the state.  Yeah, that's how involved his thinking is in terms of the power of the crown.

Your typically tedious throwing about of "danystans" and "Khaleesi national party"(!) if people don't share your opinion is the only horseshit here.  Leave it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Dany has really thought out her opposition to slavery. She saw people being mistreated and empathized with them. She then proceeded to try to help them however possible. Was that the most prudent choice? Probably not. But it wasn't inspired by a rational case against slavery, so much as an emotional reaction to the people she met. Hence why she hasn't considered all of the implications of this position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...