"Osuna's bullring: Why Game of Thrones shouldn't film there"

[Mr Fixit]

You may not be that type of person, but I know a lot of people from "more advanced" societies that behave in an arrogant manner, while only being interested in promoting their self sense of moral superiority.

I think you nailed it. Self-righteousness and pat-yourself-on-the-back mentality is omnipresent these days, it seems.

That said, I personally don't like what they're doing to bulls in corrida, but I'm not going to involve myself in a discourse about a cultural tradition I know very little about.

[sj4iy]

Well I guess Dany shouldn't even be in Meereen in the first place then!

I would be fine with that.

[Beric175]

@PatrickStormborn: Exactly. What business is it of hers how these people organize their society and what legitimacy does she have to say what's best for them, especially considering she's a foreign ruler uprooting all different kinds of economic and social institutions along the way the whole context of which she does not understand. Her intentions are noble but the way to hell is paved with good intentions. It's like if a Japanese national got to be president of the US (remember that US citizenship is a requirement to become president) and decided that a gun-free culture was the way forward and managed to change the US constitution so that it would no longer contain the 2nd Amendment...I guess there'd be a lot of gun-happy nationalists who'd feel that this was an illegitimate infringement on their 'freedoms' by 'some foreigner' trying to push his or her values on them. You might say it's a positive change in and of itself in that the mortality rate of deaths as a result of guns might decrease but there is always going to be some pushback by people who don't feel the same way you do about the values the society they live in is going to espouse. Hence, you can criticise but pushing your values on others because you think that you have embraced the position with the higher moral ground ultimately does not result in anything other than homogeneization of local traditions.

I mean I don't call the Aztecs bararians because they practiced human sacrifice because that's an oversimplification on what its role was in Aztec society and what it meant in the religious relations of the Aztecs to their own gods, to each other, and to the world. What's more, saying that would reduce Aztec culture to human sacrifice because that's all people would care about if you eve mention it, despite the fact that they had a calendric system and were a vast civilization that produced great artistic structures and in which women were equal to men and enjoyed the possibility of paid work. How would we as outsides presume to know what that culture is like and why would we be able then as outsiders to attribute value to each and every one of their traditions? Human sacrifice is certainly disgusting by our modern standards that include human dignity and the right to life and physical integrity but those concepts in the grand history of human developmet are fairly recent and don't have the same meaning even today as they did 200 years ago. To judge a whole society based on one aspect of it is fundamentally missing the point that societies are complex and multifaceted. That's why cultural relativism is necessary.

In the end when we're saying 'these traditions are awful', what we should be asking is 'what reasons does the other guy have for thinking differently about this issue than me' but that requires observation and open-minded engagement with whatever the other person has to say. If bullfighting vanishes completely I'm not going to be sad one bit but I'm not going to tell people in Spain 'here's how I think you should live and if you don't agree with my position I'm going to call you all animal abusers and judge your values and society as a whole'.

[TyrionsFlagon]

Boycott the show and don't watch.

These prize bulls in Spain eat and live better than a third of the world's population. Until the day of their fight they live prized and pampered lives.

Go help starving families or abused kids.

People need to be self-aware and know what lense they see the world through. Just because your 'cause' in the world is to help fight animal abuse doesn't mean everybody should see things your way. Some people are okay with bullfighting and it's wrong for anyone to think they can force their own opinions and agenda onto those people.

Alcohol abuse is bad, but not many people travel the world and try to force people to stop buying alcohol. Some people need real problems.

[Fiery Heart]

This video, from 5mins 30seconds, shows what 'bullfighting' really is. Taken from a documentary called Earthlings, which I can't recommend enough - essential viewing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdrgSAo8QrM

http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32

[PatrickStormborn]

Boycott the show and don't watch.

These prize bulls in Spain eat and live better than a third of the world's population. Until the day of their fight they live prized and pampered lives.

Go help starving families or abused kids.

People need to be self-aware and know what lense they see the world through. Just because your 'cause' in the world is to help fight animal abuse doesn't mean everybody should see things your way. Some people are okay with bullfighting and it's wrong for anyone to think they can force their own opinions and agenda onto those people.

Alcohol abuse is bad, but not many people travel the world and try to force people to stop buying alcohol. Some people need real problems.

You sound like Hizdahr zo Loraq advocating for the return of the fighting pits... The irony is just lost on so many of you.

But, once again, the reason this is an issue is because of tourism. The show increases tourism where it films, and this was likely used to negotiate a cheaper deal with the bullring. So, from the perspective of the people who made this decision (i.e. the showrunners and whoever they negotiated with), the show will actively increase tourism to the bullring and thus increase profits.

If the show was similarly filming somewhere where human rights abuses were common and profited from, I'm sure there would be a far stronger response than there has been to filming at the bullring.

ETA: And there's no point boycotting the show unless you have a HBO subscription.

[Sun]

Well I guess Dany shouldn't even be in Meereen in the first place then!

Which she shouldn't. She had no business interfering in Meereen. Change to a society should come from within if it is to last. Change imposed by a foreign power with little understanding of the local environment, culture, and society is destructive. Surely real life history, recent history no less, should have taught us that much by now.

[Ingelheim]

Well I guess Dany shouldn't even be in Meereen in the first place then!

Well, many could say she shouldn't have gone there in the first place, and they'd have strong arguments for it.

[Sun]

With regards to the bullfighting ring:

If people feel strongly enough about the show filming at Osuna and wish to voice their disapproval by posting, writing letters, or boycotting the show then it is their right to do so.

[PatrickStormborn]

Which she shouldn't. She had no business interfering in Meereen. Change to a society should come from within if it is to last. Change imposed by a foreign power with little understanding of the local environment, culture, and society is destructive. Surely real life history, recent history no less, should have taught us that much by now.

Well, you're missing the point I had originally intended to make: Dany is never condemned by the narrative for "interfering" in Slaver's Bay. She never thinks to herself that she should have just left the slaves in their chains and departed from Astapor to Pentos. In fact, her interference in Slaver's Bay has a positive impact throughout Essos - the Volantene slaves WANT her to interfere! The only kind of message we get about her time in Meereen is from "Jorah" during her epiphany in the Dothraki Sea, and all that is said is that she should have left "Meereen to the Meereenese" because she was needed in Westeros.

Essentially, the narrative gives two reasons for Dany not to be in Meereen: she forgot who she was (a dragon), and she's supposed to be in Westeros. Had she used fire and blood from the start, she could have enforced her rule in Meereen and destroyed the opposition of the Sons of the Harpy. Without the insurgency in the city, she would have been able to break the Yunkai'i and their allies before they besieged her. Without the siege, the city would be free to trade. But then the narrative tells her that she shouldn't do this because she belongs in Westeros - she has a destiny to follow, and she can't waste any more time in Slaver's Bay (which is what Quaithe keeps trying to warn her: "remember the Undying" - remember that the vision of the freed slaves was a distraction so the Undying could take your life, remember that Drogon saved you, "remember who you are").

And the modern comparisons to Dany's conquest/rule of Meereen are just so... irrelevant. Dany isn't occupying Meereen because it suits her imperialist interests (in fact, quite the opposite), and the situation in Meereen is basically "freed slaves vs slave owners", and then "free Meereen vs slaving cities".

[Sun]

Well, you're missing the point I had originally intended to make: Dany is never condemned by the narrative for "interfering" in Slaver's Bay. She never thinks to herself that she should have just left the slaves in their chains and departed from Astapor to Pentos. In fact, her interference in Slaver's Bay has a positive impact throughout Essos - the Volantene slaves WANT her to interfere! The only kind of message we get about her time in Meereen is from "Jorah" during her epiphany in the Dothraki Sea, and all that is said is that she should have left "Meereen to the Meereenese" because she was needed in Westeros.

Essentially, the narrative gives two reasons for Dany not to be in Meereen: she forgot who she was (a dragon), and she's supposed to be in Westeros. Had she used fire and blood from the start, she could have enforced her rule in Meereen and destroyed the opposition of the Sons of the Harpy. Without the insurgency in the city, she would have been able to break the Yunkai'i and their allies before they besieged her. Without the siege, the city would be free to trade. But then the narrative tells her that she shouldn't do this because she belongs in Westeros - she has a destiny to follow, and she can't waste any more time in Slaver's Bay (which is what Quaithe keeps trying to warn her: "remember the Undying" - remember that the vision of the freed slaves was a distraction so the Undying could take your life, remember that Drogon saved you, "remember who you are").

And the modern comparisons to Dany's conquest/rule of Meereen are just so... irrelevant. Dany isn't occupying Meereen because it suits her imperialist interests (in fact, quite the opposite), and the situation in Meereen is basically "freed slaves vs slave owners", and then "free Meereen vs slaving cities".

Whether the narrative condemns her actions or not is besides the point. I as a reader do, and that is my point.

And to tell me that modern comparisons to Dany's crusade are irrelevant when you're the one to bring her into this very current and modern discussion is ironic.

[PatrickStormborn]

Whether the narrative condemns her actions or not is besides the point. I as a reader do, and that is my point.

And to tell me that modern comparisons to Dany's crusade are irrelevant when you're the one to bring her into this very current and modern discussion is ironic.

It's not ironic because this is a scene in Dany's story. Dany opposes blood sport and she clearly has no regards for cultural relativism.

But that doesn't mean her conquest of Slaver's Bay is necessarily comparable to modern imperialism, because Dany is not a representative force of The West or anything of the kind, and because the oppression she fights in Slaver's Bay is easily defined. She's not merely using "human rights abuses" as a pretense to invade Meereen for her own benefit - in fact, the narrative concludes that it was the opposite of beneficial to her.

[Beric175]

...which is why I cannot support Dany at this point. She's going to impose her way on other societies no matter what and if the narative does not condemn her for that then I gave the author waaaaaayyy too much credit for being respectful of other societies.

It's like I say: most of this woldbuilding is window-dressing and sadly just because Dany is not a representative of the West does not mean that she is not a cultural imperialist. The fact that she forcefully removes the institution of slavery that is sadly essential to the trade in the area in itself is an act of imperialism. She may have freed those people but she has also by now exposed them to a local conflict that will most likely claim many lives in the process. instead of cooperating with the masters ad trying to convince them that it is in their best interest to give up slavery, she just took over the city and made that decision without talking to anyone. The fact that she takes the choice regarding the direction that society should go away from the local population is sufficient to condemn her. She's essentially saying: 'it's my way or the highway' and that is most likely disrespecting a lot of other local traditions in the eyes of the people living there because they don't know how much she inteds to change their society, which probably is partly behind a lot of local opposition. So despite the fact that there is no more slavery in Meereen it does not mean that she has the full support of the population behind her or that people will no longe suffer as a result of it. This makes all kinds of other decision-makig much more difficult because they don't see her legitimacy if they feel that she does not see them as people with their own traditions and cultural values.

Also, if the narrative concludes that this was not beneficial to her then she's doubly stupid because then she tried to do the morally good thing (freeing people from slavery) but without understanding of the cultural and economic impact that her methods would create and all of it without seeing any advantage to her own position in advance. While I laud her intentions she had effectively no business mingling in their affairs. They have to get rid of slavery and restructure their society on their own because they know its values and needs a lot better than she does.

Having no regard for cultural relativism means that essentially one could see themselves supporting the suppression of local voices if they think that the values they espouse are worth more than the local traditions they are trying to replace but which the local poulations favours for some reason. Meaning: you impose your own sense of what's 'right' (whatever that is) on others from outside with little or incomplete knowledge of how their society functions or what conceptions of the world these people have. That's the essence of cultural imperialism. You think you and your beliefs and values are better than everyone else's and so you cannot accept that other people live in a way that differs from your own and you are ready to use force to rectify that situation, which is what dany does because, as you said, she has nothing to gain from it other than that.

Finally, I will just use an example here if I may: it is important to allow local opposition to make its voice heard and to support it from the outside but don't try to mold another's cuture after your own without their consent. For instance, this is the reason why I am not a fan of globalisation and the ensuing cultural homogeneisation: it snuffs out any kind of cultural differences that single all kinds of local communities out and that make them special in favour of one big consumer market, in which the same boring ideas of free choice ('paper or plastic' as george carlin would say) and economic growth. It's just to allow a consumerist mindset to have access to all different societies to sell gadgets and the Americanisation of European cultures is certainly a good example of that. The free market nowadays is akin to a religion to most economists, and 'alternatives' are said to be 'more' or 'less' restrictions on capitalism but if you dare say lets abandon it altogether so that future generations may benefit from our planet, some people would be ready to declare you insane, despite the horrible effects of an individualistic, capitalistic mindset on human social interaction, the environment and empathy for someone who is essentially NOT YOU because all that counts is you and your vapid, and superficial possessions. That kind of environment breeds cruel people without consideration for someone else's thoughts and worldviews.This is a change that has come about not through force necessarily but through passive consent by the average person as well. You know why I wouldn't forcibly try to change these people's minds? It's because that kind of lifestyle and technological excess is unsustainable anyway and they'll have to change their attitudes at some point, and if they don't then they get the polluted, destroyed planet they deserve. But I'm not going to impose my values on them if they don't want to live in and for their communities. All I can do is oppose the status quo by making my voice heard and that's all. Why would I even want to make other societies into this kind of dying giant on feet of clay?

[PatrickStormborn]

There is nothing to be respected about Slaver's Bay! Contrary to popular belief, the cities are NOT dependent on slavery to survive; the reason Meereen stops trading in ADwD is because the city is blockaded and besieged, and also because the Great Masters had destroyed their biggest export (the olive trees).

I mean, the whole point of Daenerys Targaryen is that she is not part of any single culture, nor is she representative of one. She adopts aspects of all cultures and assimilates herself into all of them. When Daenerys launches her campaign in Astapor, she is not from The West; she is a khaleesi, leading a khalasar of Dothraki (a hugely symbolic point that was lacking on the show, but that's beside the point). She kills the Good Masters of Astapor to stop the creation of more Unsullied, and she ultimately frees the slaves in the city. She uses the strength and momentum gained from this to bring freedom to Yunkai without bloodshed. Once again she acts as a khaleesi (well, a khal), who makes demands of a city and departs when those demands are made (in this case, the freedom of the Yunkish slaves). Then she arrives at Meereen and sends her warriors into the sewers to free the slaves, who then rise up for her and take the city themselves.

This situation is honestly incomparable to modern western imperialism, where there isn't such a clear division of oppression. In Slaver's Bay, there are free people and there are slaves. Dany has the support of the vast majority of the slaves (like, pretty much all of them). She isn't freeing them for some imperialist motivation; she's freeing them because they need to be free, and no one is doing anything about it. We can argue forever about whether she did the right thing by interfering... but the truth is that the freed slaves continue to support her, even after she has been gone from Meereen for weeks and presumed dead. Even the slaves in Volantis want to uprise because of her actions, and the Red Priests are arguing in her favour.

The reason your argument is completely off-base is because you're only giving agency to the rulers of the slaver cities, which actually contradicts the entire point you're trying to make! The slaves - who are as much a part of their society as the slave-owners - want to be free. They generally all support Daenerys (with the odd exception, such as Tyrion, who is too jaded to believe in a saviour like Daenerys). The slave-owners don't support her, of course, neither do some of the citizens who had been free all along because of the impact of their social status... But she still has the support of the freed slaves.

Cultural relativism is only really relevant to the fighting pits. Dany listens to the Meereenese (well, the ones who were free before her arrival) and decides to let Hizdahr reopen them. She immediately regrets this, and I think we're supposed to agree - especially considering it nearly results in the death of Tyrion. Because culture should never be an excuse for evil or cruelty.

So why on earth should bullfighting be excused, just because it has a history in Spanish culture? The mere fact that it's banned in some areas of Spain should be used as a precedent to illustrate that culture is not an excuse for cruelty.

BUT the main issue here, for me at least, is that the showrunners are SUPPORTING this cruelty by filming here - paying to film there and increasing tourism to the bullring. So, to quote you: "All I can do is oppose the status quo by making my voice heard and that's all."

[The Emberheart]

Seeing the bull ring does not mean you endorse it, it means you acknowledge its existence and whatever opinion you have about its use is personal. During those 50 minutes the episode lasts, it won't be the bull ring of Osuna. It'll be a bull ring in Dorne or wherever.

Game of Thrones becomes increasingly daring in the scenes it shoots. I'd not be entirely surprised if they'll have an actual bullfight in a Dorne based scene or such, just to press the boundaries further. It'd be one of those things that despite angering a great deal of people, only draws more attention to the series. Do I agree with it? Absolutely not, but animal harm or reference to that has been used often for television, either to shake people awake or to shock people and it works! Otherwise we wouldn't get hotheaded about the topic after all. How many of those movies haven't been immortalized by being known as that movie where those real cows, that dog and the goat died? Directors do what they like, a means to an end thing.

[cade]

Great article by Westeros.org, and great posts, Patrick. Very sad that D&D have sunk so low. Yes, there are places that abuse animals even worse, but GoT hasn't filmed in them and it obviously shouldn't be filming in a bullring.

On a far less important subject, these frequent efforts to equate Dany's actions with Western imperialism are fallacious and offensive to the real victims of imperialism. I also utterly despise arguments that present the slavers as legitimate representatives of the population.

It's like I say: most of this woldbuilding is window-dressing and sadly just because Dany is not a representative of the West does not mean that she is not a cultural imperialist. The fact that she forcefully removes the institution of slavery that is sadly essential to the trade in the area in itself is an act of imperialism.

Classic example of cultural relativism gone horribly wrong. Slavery was not essential. It was nothing but a tool of oppression to extract wealth from the masses up to the elites. Meereen had good agriculture, ample food stores and vast wealth hoarded by the slavers that should've been spent on social services and rebuilding Meereen's crumbling infrastructure.

instead of cooperating with the masters ad trying to convince them that it is in their best interest to give up slavery, she just took over the city and made that decision without talking to anyone. The fact that she takes the choice regarding the direction that society should go away from the local population is sufficient to condemn her. She's essentially saying: 'it's my way or the highway'

A vast majority of the local population had already had their choice taken away by slavers. You condemn Dany but will you condemn the slavers? In addition to enslaving the majority, they were running an inter-continental human-trafficking ring that stole little children like Missandei and her brothers from independent, peaceful territories up to thousands of miles away. They were the imperialists, not Dany, who was hailed as Mhysa by a vast majority of slaves she freed. Her army overwhelmingly consists of people who were either indigenous to Slaver's Bay or kidnapped to it by slavers. She herself was sold into slavery, albeit not a form equivalent to what most slaves suffered.

The notion that Dany could've talked slavers into letting their slaves go is ludicrous. They were running a society that relished rolling children in honey for bears and a conservative estimate is that 48,000 children were killed to make each 8,000 batch of Unsullied.

Of course Dany as a poorly educated teenager was far from the ideal person to take this fight on, but someone had to and she's the only one with any power in that world who cared.

[Janicia]

The obsession with trying to make every entity with a voice fight for every worthy cause is exasperating.

But Game of Thrones "endorsing" a bullring might be a step toward abolition of bull fighting rather than a step toward rehabilitating it. Places that depend on tourist dollars are sensitive to horrified/angry tourists. Your average tourist that wanders into Osuna's bullring because they heard it was associated with Game of Thrones is not going to be happy watching an actual bullfight.

I went to a Spanish bullfight with a group of 20 American high school students. The group was moderately excited to attend the bullfight but was horrified enough about the experience that most refused to eat meat with dinner after the fight. I wasn't so upset about the blood, but there was a lot of down time and we were pretty far back - it was kind of boring. I have no desire to go to another.

[The Reckoner]

Consider how the ring is being put to use, though. It is a fighting pit in Meereen, hardly anything grand, or glorious, or that glorifies the bullring. You could look at their decision to use Osuna's Bullring as a setting for a dehumanizing and brutal Meereenese institution could be taken as something of a commentary on the bullring's history, or bullfighting in general.

[Jack Bauer 24]

Is this going to get the show/HBO in hot water when the Season starts?

[Konradsmith]

Probably not. Peter Dinklage's involved in PETA and could probably mitigate their outrage quite a bit.