Was Xaro Right About Dany? Was The Man A Slave? Part II

[SeanF]

WRT voluntary slavery, the idea sounds bizarre. How can a free person sell himself into slavery, if a slave himself is his master's property, and therefore the proceeds of sale revert to the master (less Dany's 10%)?

The way I think it works is that the proceeds of sale go to the next of kin. It's probably an attractive option, if you're a prosperous person who's lost everything in the Sack of Meereen, and your family is destitute. They at least get some capital; you get the chance of a more comfortable life elsewhere.

As others have pointed out, though, it's going to be very difficult to distinguish voluntary slaves from involuntary ones.

[LordStoneheart]

Has it been considered that the two sides mentioned in the original OP could both have some validity to them?

Xaro both outsmarted Dany (not hard) and Dany has lost grip on what she meant to do with Meereen in regards to slavery and only just began to realize that slave cities aren't easily freed overnight.

[Ziggy Targdust]

I still think Dany is consistent in not wanting people to be taken against their will.

Ill change my mind and say allowing people who want to become slaves to do so and making profit from it makes Dany a hypocrite. But no more hypocritical than Westeros claiming that slavery is illegal but allowing people to be sold into marriage. So I see calling it out as just another excuse to poo poo on Dany.

I think her intentions of wanting people not forcefully taken into slavery are still there and should be apparent

I certainly see a big difference. If there is some dangerous water where there's a good chance of drowning. I see a huge difference in someone allowing me the chance to attempt to swim across that water and someone throwing me into that water against my will. Even though there's a good chance I will drown either way.

As far as ditch digger, there's just not enough information to confirm him as not being a slave.

That doesn't mean I think that he is one, there's not enough information to proclaim that either

[danm_999]

Ill change my mind and say allowing people who want to become slaves to do so and making profit from it makes Dany a hypocrite. But no more hypocritical than Westeros claiming that slavery is illegal but allowing people to be sold into marriage. So I see calling it out as just another excuse to poo poo on Dany.

That point isn't made because the thread isn't about Westerosi culture though.

[Ziggy Targdust]

That point isn't made because the thread isn't about Westerosi culture though.

I still see it as just another excuse to poo poo on Dany. If the morality of it is a point to be discussed then it should be compared within the context of the fictional world she lives in.

[Wmarshal]

Has it been considered that the two sides mentioned in the original OP could both have some validity to them?

Xaro both outsmarted Dany (not hard) and Dany has lost grip on what she meant to do with Meereen in regards to slavery and only just began to realize that slave cities aren't easily freed overnight.

The whole point of that talk was about whether that man was a slave, she, when Xaro said he was a slave and she said nothing pointing him being anything else.

[danm_999]

I still see it as just another excuse to poo poo on Dany. If the morality of it is a point to be discussed then it should be compared within the context of the fictional world she lives in.

You know it's possible to find Daenerys and Westerosi society both guilty of hypocrisy for different reasons. Bringing up an utterly unrelated "but character X does something bad too" is pretty much the lowest form of discourse possible.

Else you can't ever examine an individual characters merits or faults without someone else coming in and bringing up irrelevant facts.

[SeanF]

Slavery is condemned in Westeros, but are the peasants serfs? Or are they free, but economically dependent on their lords? Or a mixture?

[Ziggy Targdust]

You know it's possible to find Daenerys and Westerosi society both guilty of hypocrisy for different reasons. Bringing up an utterly unrelated "but character X does something bad too" is pretty much the lowest form of discourse possible.

Else you can't ever examine an individual characters merits or faults without someone else coming in and bringing up irrelevant facts.

Actually using the thread just to poo poo on Dany and call her a hypocrite is a much lower form of discourse.

Again, If morality is to be discussed there must be some context so it's either.

- examining Dany in context of your own personal morality which is fine but it's really just you showing off what a swell person you are

- examining her in context of modern real world leaders and norms, which is totally unfair

- examing her in context of the world and story where she exists, which I find a better option than the other two, and certainly a much higher form of discourse than using the thread to call Dany a hypocrite.

Pointing out that "character X" may not be flawless but many of the criticisms are status quo in the context of their world and story, I find perfectly acceptable.

Just because points brought up don't lend themselves to spewing venom(examining merits and faults) towards a character with zero context doesn't make them irrelevant facts.

By all means, spew the hatred of characters you don't like, I do it too with characters I don't like, but don't pretend you are engaging in a superior form of discourse when someone else puts it in some sort of context.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Slavery is condemned in Westeros, but are the peasants serfs? Or are they free, but economically dependent on their lords? Or a mixture?

I would say it's the latter, but when the Mountain is raiding the Riverlands in AGOT and Ned has to deal with it, the knight (I think it was a Vance) demands some peasants. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

[Parwan]

2. WRT voluntary slavery, the idea sounds bizarre. How can a free person sell himself into slavery, if a slave himself is his master's property, and therefore the proceeds of sale revert to the master (less Dany's 10%)?

The way I think it works is that the proceeds of sale go to the next of kin. It's probably an attractive option, if you're a prosperous person who's lost everything in the Sack of Meereen, and your family is destitute. They at least get some capital; you get the chance of a more comfortable life elsewhere.

1. As others have pointed out, though, it's going to be very difficult to distinguish voluntary slaves from involuntary ones.

1. I'm not sure what this means. It is certainly easy to distinguish between volunteering for something and having that thing forced upon you. I guess one could say that it would be difficult, after the fact, to say whether a current slave had been sold by a master (presumably because the master wanted money) or had sold himself (perhaps to provide for a family which was destitute). We might compare this to solders in a war. At some point, they are on the front lines, shooting at people and being shot at. It doesn't matter whether they volunteered or were drafted. Before the event though, the differences are clear. One fellow volunteers. He is not a draftee.

2. The idea doesn't just sound bizarre. It is a flat-out contradiction. I don't think that the matter can be stated better than it was by Frey Pentos in the first thread:

"How does a slave sell him or herself? By definition they are owned by another. Only a free person has the free will to choose to sell themselves into indentured labour or not. The slave owner makes that choice for the non free."

Other issues come up.

There are questions about Dany's answers and how her face changes color. These relate to her emotional state, her opinions, etc. They do not prove anything about the actual facts. If someone is embarrassed because they think they have done something wrong, that does not prove that they have done something wrong. I don't accept the assertion that Dany thinks the man (or some man in a not-fully-defined "similar situation")* is actually a slave. Even if I did, however, that would still fall far short of proving that the guy is anyone's property.

There are questions about Dany's rule in Meereen and the concept of forcing people to sell themselves. These things are very general. They cannot be solved without going into a great deal of detail that would require everyone to go far off the subject. Realistically, I don't think they can be solved at all in a thread like the present one. What do we mean by 'forcing people"? Did the guy (or someone sort of like him)* actually have no other options? Is it truly the fact that there is starvation in Meereen? (BTW, I say that the answer to that question is "no.") How much different is the condition of slaves in Essos from the condition of peasants in Westeros? How much of the problem in Meereen is due to Dany, and how much of it is due to her enemies?....And on, and on, and on.

What it comes down to is this: We have a simple question. By far and away, our best choice is to choose a simple answer. Frey Pentos showed us the way. The basic question involved the past tense of the verb "to be." It asked about the fellow's status when he supposedly talked to Xaro. When we look carefully at the fundamentals, this is what we get--

Question: Was the man a slave?

Answer: No.

..................................................

* Xaro is a liar. Xaro is a sophist. We cannot be sure that the former merchant even exists. If he exists, I still would not put any faith in Xaro's account of the conversation. I maintain that we don't have anything like adequate information on how many people there are like him in the city, exactly what "like him" means, or what these people believe their options are.