Thank Mhysa for “Freedom”

[JonSnow4President]

Of course I've read the thread. Instead of giving a cheap smart ass answer read what he said and what I answer. He asked whether one has a right to impose our morals over others. I answer that slavery is above cultural morals and thefore a crime against humanity, which should be abolished regardless of cultural differences.

By the way look up: Hostis humani generis

Actually, I'm more going for the philosophical reason we can say slavery is above cultural morals, because doing so inherently sets the ideals of the person/group doing that above the other cultural group. While I agree that slavery is a crime against humanity, it is somewhat elitist to say that my values are so inherently better than yours, they are a condition of humanity.

[No Song so Sweet]

I don't think Maia's wrong. It was pretty much taken for granted in the ancient world that attractive slaves, whether female or male, were expected to provide their masters with sex, if demanded. No master would have considered that to be rape. In all likelihood, many of the slaves wouldn't have considered it to be rape, either. And, in many non-slave societies, attractive servants or employees are seen in the same light. If a master had children by a slave, the likelihood is that he'd treat them better than he would most slaves, but he might choose to expose them instead, or sell them, if they were unwanted. For that matter, a master could expose unwanted legitimate children,.

Obviously, ideas about what constitutes rape have evolved. Forcing women to marry their conquerors wouldn't have been considered rape in the time-period you're discussing (Dany doesn't consider it to be rape, either). But we would see it as such,

Well I don't have any such examples in mind where servants also had to provide sex to their masters. No examples at all. I don't think it was institutional or common practice, maybe there were exceptions. Attractive women would become highly paid prostitutes maybe but there was no sex slavery that I know of in ancient Greece, certainly not GRRM style.

In Rome it happened a lot, and fornication with a slave was not even considered as such because slaves were "res", objects, and therefore it was permitted to a married man/woman to have sex with a slave.

I also don't know the details of the whole slave with children situation, but I think that the slaves themselves were responsible for their children and how to raise them, the masters had no say in it. I think.

[HexMachina]

Actually, I'm more going for the philosophical reason we can say slavery is above cultural morals, because doing so inherently sets the ideals of the person/group doing that above the other cultural group. While I agree that slavery is a crime against humanity, it is somewhat elitist to say that my values are so inherently better than yours, they are a condition of humanity.

But isnt that exactly what the Slavers do to their Slaves? "Your culture, laws and ideals do not matter. We took you, so you are ours, and we can.do what we please with you now."

[Mr Hodor]

No you are wrong. The concept of universal human rights is a concept developed in the eras of humanism and Enlightment. To apply them backwards throughout history means in the end that almost all historic figures were war criminals and should be trialed posthumous at the ICC in the Hague.

Lets take that in another context, Earth is round became known in during the eras of humanism and enlightment. To apply them backwards throughout history means in the end that almost all historic scholars were idiots should their books should be banned.

Of course not, Earth was always round, pythagoras just did not know it. that does not make pythagoras idiot, neither does it make earth flat.

Similarly, slavery was always bad, Some historical figures just did not believe it. That does not make them war criminals, neither does it justify slavery.

[Arakan]

Lets take that in another context, Earth is round became known in during the eras of humanism and enlightment. To apply them backwards throughout history means in the end that almost all historic scholars were idiots should their books should be banned.

Of course not, Earth was always round, pythagoras just did not know it. that does not make pythagoras idiot, neither does it make earth flat.

Similarly, slavery was always bad, Some historical figures just did not believe it. That does not make them war criminals, neither does it justify slavery.

I am not a fecking idiot, thanks.

To give you another much more practical example why the 'concept of universal everlasting omnipresent human rights which were valid since Adam and Eve (but just had not been enforced' doesnt work the way it was described.

In my country in the heart of the EU the death penalty is in general considered by all scholars as barbaric, uncivilized and plain state murder. And denying the convicted fundamental human rights.

In the US many states think it's just and legitimate.

Who is right who is wrong? Is it ok for me to say that the US is breaking fundamental human rights and committing state murder?

OF COURSE I would never do that because the world is not that simplistic...

[SeanF]

Well I don't have any such examples in mind where servants also had to provide sex to their masters. No examples at all. I don't think it was institutional or common practice, maybe there were exceptions. Attractive women would become highly paid prostitutes maybe but there was no sex slavery that I know of in ancient Greece, certainly not GRRM style.

Alcabiades kept a sex slave, who was taken at the Sack of Melos. Phaedo was a young man who was enslaved, and had to work as a male prostitute, until Plato and his friends bought his freedom.

[Hrafntýr]

Lets take that in another context, Earth is round became known in during the eras of humanism and enlightment. To apply them backwards throughout history means in the end that almost all historic scholars were idiots should their books should be banned.

Of course not, Earth was always round, pythagoras just did not know it. that does not make pythagoras idiot, neither does it make earth flat.

Similarly, slavery was always bad, Some historical figures just did not believe it. That does not make them war criminals, neither does it justify slavery.

In fact, Enlightenment ideas about human rights and the idea that the earth is round are just as historically specific as social and scientific knowledge from other periods (and indeed the round earth might seem like a quaint pseudo-scientific view from the perspective of physicists 500 years from now, just as notions of individual autonomy may seem). You are free, of course, and most people do, to see the reality that we inhabit today to have been always existent, but it doesn't really help us to understand the reality inhabited by human actors in different times and places, including fictional ones. The "anachronism" charge, or the call to base evaluation of Dany's actions on what we know about slavery in the books, is about trying to identify what are the pertinent, available "choices" that she and others might make in the face of the actual forms of enslavement and slavery that exist around her.

It doesn't get us anywhere, or at least I don't think it does, to have an argument about whether slavery is or isn't inherently evil, since that has no bearing on the actors in the books, though some of them could be heading in that direction; Dany is one among many actors whose views are evolving. Think of the Kindly Man's story of the origins of the FM: first slaves were simply realizing that they wanted to escape the brutal conditions of their lives via death. Then they realized that they could take out the slaveholders, or that they could escape through other means than suicide. But this has remained, it would seem, a small-scale movement, never spreading to become an ideology of universal human freedom: there, too, people really just have the freedom to die (all men must serve, all men must die). It's not clear what the Red Priests are preaching to the slaves, but there's something going on there, and could be abolitionist in its direction. But it's clear that while there have been pockets of resistance to slavery in Essos, there's not really a well-developed model for how it could be demolished or replaced.

[Kyoshi]

Wow. This thread is moving really fast.

Anyway, of course it's important to discuss such things. However, sometimes it's rather pointless to discuss things for the sake of discussing them, so that we can pat each others' backs later and say, well we talked about the issue of slavery and we've decided that the revolution was a necessary one after all. An academic approach is refreshing sometimes.

However, an academic approach isn't always the best approach or even the most feasible solution. Now, with our combined education and history lessons, can we name as many revolutions as we would like to name that went on smoothly, without catastrophe? Every revolutionary probably had some text book idea of how it would all go. Did it got that way? Unless of course you look at the very rare case of South Africa where the leader of the previous system decided to simply surrender in peace, even going as far as surrendering all nuclear weapons for destruction. I can't think of any other peaceful changeover of an established system. But before this happened, South Africa was at the brink of a civil war. Bombs were going off at shopping malls, people were shooting one another, there was torture on a grand scale, every symptom of war you can think of was experienced. So we can conclude that even this particular miracle rising wasn't as bloodless and peaceful as we would like.

I agree that we should evaluate the aftermath of abolition. We can question the proposed policies meant to sustain the new form of rule. It's pretty reckless to engineer abolition without any plan whatsoever. This is where the academic argument creeps on again. It's a wise thing to do, perhaps even a practical thing. But given that human nature tends to be volatile as opposed to rational most times, and there are simply way too many factors to be considered, I don't think the text book approach will work immediately. Yeah sure you can suggest that perhaps the rebel leader, in this case Dany, should have followed some formula, applied a little heat here and add some salt there, kill a few rebels here and take a few more hostages (and kill then when she is disobeyed), but you have to realise she is not operating in an ideal world. These things aren't an exact science. You can implement a policy, you can even use a dragon or two to bend people to your will...how long does it take before you have a revolution brewing to depose you? How long before you become a dictator? How long before it all fails anyway?

The point is Dany isn't operating in a bubble. If she could control minds and she managed to subdue the war brewing just beyond her walls, if she could negotiate with the Harpy to stop the killings, if she could open up trade by simply yelling Dracarys, if Dany could do all these things and Meereen was still chaos...then the OP's standpoint might be an understandable one. The truth is that no matter what she did Dany was always going to have a million problems in Meereen. She had the arrogance to end slavery, that was her biggest crime as one of the people in Essos said. Everything else that follows came from that.

So yeah, I don't quite agree that we should question the revolution itself. Be it from inside or ignited by external factors. I understand that external parties might have ulterior motives. Then again, one of the biggest things we're fond of stating as a major human flaw is that of self-preservation i.e. that of simply watching as an injustice continues. That's a whole other issue, leading to a whole other argument. But I will say this, think of all the times you've heard German people be blamed for the Holocaust, I'm talking about ordinary citizens. Also think of the many times African countries that hid South African political fighters be applauded. The system might be bad to the extent that the people being oppressed simply don't have the resources, time and gathering opportunity to engineer an efficient revolution. They're just living to stay alive.

Finally, Essos and it's issues are realistic to me. Logic dictates that some of the former slaves probably went on to take on slaves of their own. After some of the former Liberian slaves were freed and allowed to leave the US, they went on to take slaves of their own back on home.

Sorry for the long post.

[Kyoshi]

Very thoughtful post.

My issue with this kind of threads is that at the end they are totally and utterly pointless because they are boringly anachronistic.

At the end of the day exteme posters will ALWAYS bring up Lincoln and the US abolition of slavery as THE moral benchmark (which in itself is ridiculous*) and people who like to have a more balanced discussion will be (more or less subtly) accused of being "friends of slavers" (and thus "pro slavery") which really is fecking offensive in itself.

Unless those posters (I guess many of them Americans) stop bringing up Lincoln and abolition there will be no intelligent discussion.

Bring up Roman slave revolts or bring up the outphasing of the ancient slave system and its subsequent substitution with the medieval-germanic (and christian) concept of feudalism and serfdom. All that is fine but NOT Lincoln!

That would be like me arguing against Westerosi feudalism and how shit an autocratic and authoritarian rulership is because, you know, at the end of THAT road there is Hitler, Stalin, Mao...it would be bullshit argumentation. And so is bringing up Lincoln.

*it is ridiculous because slavery in the midth of the 19. century, in a self-proclaimed enlightened and democratic county was even back then ridiculously anachronistic. The US slavery system was seen as barbaric by all educated contemporaries in Europe. If someone wants to take RL examples, they should at least try to use more fitting time periods.

I'm not American by the way.

The reason people bring up real world examples is because those who are arguing against the merits of Slaver's Bay apply real world arguments. They apply logic often gained from years of education, something that isn't necessarily the case with Daenerys. By the same logic of limiting the discussion of real world heroes, perhaps we should limit the alternative tools that could have been used to those contained within the book and by the characters concerned.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

The reason people bring up real world examples is because those who are arguing against the merits of Slaver's Bay apply real world arguments. They apply logic often gained from years of education, something that isn't necessarily the case with Daenerys. By the same logic of limiting the discussion of real world heroes, perhaps we should limit the alternative tools that could have been used to those contained within the book and by the characters concerned.

The problem is not applying real world exambles. The problem is when the exambles chosen are not applicable. Slavers' Bay setting is portrayed as a "pre-medieval" sort of society while Lincoln's America was post-enlightment.

This is what "anachronistic" refers to and if it's done in a historical or even pseudohistorical "study" it's an basic methodological error.

[SeanF]

I'm not American by the way.

The reason people bring up real world examples is because those who are arguing against the merits of Slaver's Bay apply real world arguments. They apply logic often gained from years of education, something that isn't necessarily the case with Daenerys. By the same logic of limiting the discussion of real world heroes, perhaps we should limit the alternative tools that could have been used to those contained within the book and by the characters concerned.

It's perfectly fair to enquire what any of us would have done in Dany's position.

I probably would not have tried to abolish slavery. I'd have sought to outlaw its worst aspects. That would have meant ending the right of masters to execute or torture slaves, to sell them into prostitution, or put them in the fighting pits, or to enslave free people. These are all real-world examples of what governments have done, decades before outright abolition became feasible.

But, I'm writing at the age of 47. Dany is 15, and the world is far more black and white at that age.

[OldGimletEye]

I'm not American by the way.

The reason people bring up real world examples is because those who are arguing against the merits of Slaver's Bay apply real world arguments. They apply logic often gained from years of education, something that isn't necessarily the case with Daenerys. By the same logic of limiting the discussion of real world heroes, perhaps we should limit the alternative tools that could have been used to those contained within the book and by the characters concerned.

Short answer is no. I have no problem with people using real world examples to think about these issues. The trouble starts when people make over broad analogies without accounting for important distinctions. Details matter. They matter a lot. The circumstances of any given case are always going to matter.

If Dany defenders want to use Lincoln as a justification for Dany's actions, then that is fine by me. But, unlike Dany, Lincoln and the North had a reasonable chance of winning the conflict because of the North's greater population and industrial base. Secondly, when the slaves were freed, there was at least some idea of what to replace slavery with, which was a liberal economic order. Also, importantly, at least in the United States, the political institutions were in place to ensure slavery wouldn't return and to address the issues that would face the freedman after their emancipation. Also, importantly, it wasn't like Lincoln got in a conflict with the South, while planning to be in a war somewhere else in a couple of years.

Now the argument that Dany didn't have a “template” to work from, in so far as emancipation is concerned, has some merit. But, still even by the standards of ASOIAF, Dany is pretty ignorant. Asking Dany to gain some knowledge of the situation before she starts a major war is not much to ask.

[TheMysteriousOne]

The ideas of the OP of this thread are eerily similar to many of the justifications made by Southern slaveholders in the Antebellum South.

ETA: And LOOOL at Tyrion suddenly becoming this authority on slavery. Too many readers treat Tyrion like he is always some knowledgeable sage, when in reality he can be just as biased and ignorant as other characters.

Also, I'd love to ask him how he feels about slavery now after knowing that he was about to be fed to a bunch of lions without consent solely to make some people giggle.

[Arakan]

The ideas of the OP of this thread are eerily similar to many of the justifications made by Southern slaveholders in the Antebellum South.

Sometimes I am asking myself how it can be possible that people are so ignorant of the basic principles of a discussion...

Please read the thread and please read what e.g. ShadowCats wrote above you...

[Arakan]

Short answer is no. I have no problem with people using real world examples to think about these issues. The trouble starts when people make over broad analogies with accounting for important distinctions. Details matter. They matter a lot. The circumstances of any given case are always going to matter.

If Dany defenders want to use Lincoln as a justification for Dany's actions, then that is fine by me. But, unlike Dany, Lincoln and the North had a reasonable chance of winning the conflict because of the North's greater population and industrial base. Secondly, when the slaves were freed, there was at least some idea of what to replace slavery with, which was a liberal economic order. Also, importantly, at least in the United States, the political institutions were in place to ensure slavery wouldn't return and to address the issues that would face the freedman after their emancipation. Also, importantly, it wasn't like Lincoln got in a conflict with the South, while planning to be in a war somewhere else in a couple of years.

Now the argument that Dany didn't have a template to work from, in so far as emancipation is concerned, has some merit. But, still even by the standards of ASOIAF, Dany is pretty ignorant. Asking Dany to gain some knowledge of the situation before she starts a major war is not much to ask.

All this and by the time slavery was abolished in the US, it was already a cruel anarchronism back then. All the Western World thought of it as barbaric. The US did indeed shame itself and its reputation that slavery was abolished so late...

[TheMysteriousOne]

If Dany defenders want to use Lincoln as a justification for Dany's actions, then that is fine by me. But, unlike Dany, Lincoln and the North had a reasonable chance of winning the conflict because of the North's greater population and industrial base. Secondly, when the slaves were freed, there was at least some idea of what to replace slavery with, which was a liberal economic order. Also, importantly, at least in the United States, the political institutions were in place to ensure slavery wouldn't return and to address the issues that would face the freedman after their emancipation. Also, importantly, it wasn't like Lincoln got in a conflict with the South, while planning to be in a war somewhere else in a couple of years.

I disagree with this. Dany's actions and the aftereffects of said actions are very comparable to those of Lincoln's.

Yes, slavery did not return to the United States, but until the 1960s (and arguably until very recently) African-Americans were treated like second-class citizens, and were murdered on extremely stupid pretenses, discriminated against, laughed at, ridiculed, and described as sub-human or even ape-like.

After slavery ended, most of the former slaves had absolutely nowhere to go. No welfare system was put in place, no meaningful compensation was given, and no chance for assimilation into American society was afforded. Most of the former slaves just stayed as 'paid' workers for their former masters. Oh and they were barely paid enough to purchase anything useful. So they were slaves in all but name. Like many of the former slaves in Slaver's Bay.

So yeah Lincoln freed the slaves, but that did not really accomplish much of anything and was not some great revolution as many like to claim. However, one cannot say that this did not give former slaves hope or a sense of freedom; it did. It caused a chain reaction which led to the Civil Rights Movement. Many argue that African-Americans still haven't achieved equality.

So no Lincoln's liberation of American slaves was not some entirely cohesive, well-planned and helpful act. It did lead to something good, a century later. What is happening in Slaver's Bay is very similar to what occurred in post-Civil War America. For example, the Sons of the Harpy are very similar to the KKK. Who is to say that Dany's liberation of the slaves will not lead to a Civil Rights movement, or something very analogous? We know that her liberation of the slaves has led to some hope. That is what matters.

[RoamingRonin]

Stop trying to defend slavery. It's sick that people hate a fictional character so much as to try and defend the practice of slavery.

I'm finally caught up to this thread and this post sums it up. 12 pages of people claiming they aren't trying to justify slavery while doing just that and then there's Arakan providing nothing but a healthy dose of disdain for everyone that doesn't agree with him.

Asking Dany to gain some knowledge of the situation before she starts a major war is not much to ask.

I agree with this. I'm glad she decided to free the slaves but she could have taken a page out of Aegon the Conqueror's book and created a painted table or something before she started her campaign.

[TheMysteriousOne]

Sometimes I am asking myself how it can be possible that people are so ignorant of the basic principles of a discussion...

Please read the thread and please read what e.g. ShadowCats wrote above you...

I did read the thread and I commented on the implications of the ideas presented in the OP.

All this and by the time slavery was abolished in the US, it was already a cruel anarchronism back then. All the Western World thought of it as barbaric. The US did indeed shame itself and its reputation that slavery was abolished so late...

And so does the "Western World" in ASOIAF.

[Arakan]

I'm finally caught up to this thread and this post sums it up. 12 pages of people claiming they aren't trying to justify slavery while doing just that and then there's Arakan providing nothing but a healthy dose of disdain for everyone that doesn't agree with him.

Whatever :)

[Mithras]

Dany came to Astapor to buy Unsullied in her quest to take IT. No abolitionist campaign was intended by then. After witnessing the atrocities in the creation of the Unsullied, she decided to liberate Astapor. At this point her abolitionist campaign started.

She killed almost all the Good Masters and freed all the slaves. She left a council of three men, a healer, a scholar and a priest to rule. She knew well that the walls of Astapor were crumbling yet the reason why they were never attempted to be sacked was the constant Unsullied being kept there. Dany took that force as well as the plunder she got and left Astapor, thinking that they will live happily ever after.

Then she moved on to Yunkai and Meereen. Her strategy was the same. She was hoping to free all the slaves, abolish slavery, leave a council of wisemen to rule and gather all the forces she can to march on Westeros.

By the time she took Meereen, the ugly face of the truth showed itself. Her new order was a complete utopia and it was failing big time. Yunkai was lost immediately, Astapor became an abattoir.

One of the greatest intellectual failures of Dany was that she thought she could just abolish slavery in SB and the rest of the world would not care.

“The best calumnies are spiced with truth,” suggested Qavo, “but the girl’s true sin cannot be denied. This arrogant child has taken it upon herself to smash the slave trade, but that traffic was never confined to Slaver’s Bay. It was part of the sea of trade that spanned the world, and the dragon queen has clouded the water. Behind the Black Wall, lords of ancient blood sleep poorly, listening as their kitchen slaves sharpen their long knives. Slaves grow our food, clean our streets, teach our young. They guard our walls, row our galleys, fight our battles. And now when they look east, they see this young queen shining from afar, this breaker of chains. The Old Blood cannot suffer that. Poor men hate her too. Even the vilest beggar stands higher than a slave. This dragon queen would rob him of that consolation.”

Dany did not know how many enemies she made by disrupting the slave trade.

“I assume you know that the Targaryen girl has not started for the west?”

“We heard that tale in Selhorys.”

“No tale. Simple truth. The why of it is harder to grasp. Sack Meereen, aye, why not? I would have done the same in her place. The slaver cities reek of gold, and conquest requires coin. But why linger? Fear? Madness? Sloth?”

I think this should have been Dany’s general strategy, not attempting an abolitionist campaign. She could have collected tribute from the Yunkai and Meereen, forced them laws to ban the most disgusting slavery practices (folly fights etc.) and moved on. This way, she could not be a Myhsa figure but she would not make enemies as Volantis or Qarth and she could have made an improvement for the slaves at the same time.

Until she takes a correct measure of the slave trade and gains a strong foothold (like IT or the alliance of Braavos), she should not have started an abolitionist campaign.