12 years old wearing tokars; fair game or not?

[TheMysteriousOne]

Yet she ordered the males 12+ yo who wore tokar to die. The fact that Dany thought that 12+(till lets say 16) were men makes it better?

For the millionth time, no, she did not murder all males 12+ to die. She ordered every man who wore a tokar to be killed and said that no child under 12 should be harmed. Like I just said, you do not necessarily know who qualifies as a man in Essos/Slaver's Bay or in Daenerys' mind. We cannot conclusively state that Dany said that every male wearing a tokar above 12 was fair game, because for all we know, a man to her could be 15+ or 16+, for example.

[Hodor's Dragon]

-> snip Yet she ordered the males 12+ yo who wore tokar to die. -> snip NO SHE DIDN'T!!!!!! She ordered them to kill "every man." Please read the damn book and say what she really said. Christ, how many times do we have to go over this? OK, I quit after this. Say she said whatever you please.

[Equilibrium]

Yes, as much as slavers as a class are.

People of 12 can be as bad as older ones, and they are likely technically adults in their society so not to justify Daenerys but if she can kill 14, 16 year olds 12 year olds are game too.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1) Yes, he would be wrong morally, but not necessarily legally. Anyway, I don't see how this example pertains to Dany's orders in Astapor? People don't choose to be born from incest; people don't choose to be born, period. However, people can choose whether or not to be slavers, and therein lies the difference.

Sure a child who has been raised to in a slaver's' culture, because there it was their culture, and has inherited the family business meaning that knows nothing more has a choice.

2) Yes, the king would be wrong. It's actually kind of annoying that you seem to believe that such an arbitrary act is comparable to Dany's orders. Slavery is wrong, wearing 'nice' clothes, isn't. Slavery is unambiguously an infringement on a person's rights and freedoms. Wearing some fabrics causes little to no harm to anyone.

Slavery is wrong in her mind and because she isn't the one who gets the profit, once she got the profit slavery was ok. For people in Slaver Bay it's the only thing they know. Is it good? Heck no. Does it mean that people who practised it before it become illegal should die because of it? Should they die for being a memeber of a slavers' family?

People of 12 can be as bad as older ones, and they are likely technically adults in their society so not to justify Daenerys but if she can kill 14, 16 year olds 12 year olds are game too.

As far as we know they become an adult at 16, if they were adults at 12 then Dany was a fair game when he told that she should be killed.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

There's a point to be made about Joffrey here - The thirteen year old boy. Joffrey was certainly cruel at his young age. I mean, this is the boy that abused Sansa at every chance, stripped her naked and forced his Kingsguard to beat her. I wish I could feel worse at his death. I think it depends on the point of view - I could never agree with killing a thirteen-year old boy, but I didn't mourned Joffrey. At all.

[PatrickStormborn]

I'm pretty sure GRRM included the line "but harm no child under twelve" just to show that she was making an effort to protect the lives of children.

If the line was not included, we would not be having this argument, because there's absolutely no indication that she's ordering the deaths of everyone above twelve. She's only ordering the deaths of adult men wearing tokars, but she's calling for the Unsullied to make sure that they don't accidentally harm any children.

[TheMysteriousOne]

1) Sure a child who has been raised to in a slaver's' culture, because there it was their culture, and has inherited the family business meaning that knows nothing more has a choice.

2) Slavery is wrong in her mind and because she isn't the one who gets the profit, once she got the profit slavery was ok. For people in Slaver Bay it's the only thing they know. Is it good? Heck no. Does it mean that people who practised it before it become illegal should die because of it? Should they die for being a memeber of a slavers' family?

1) Being born into a slaving culture is not your fault, participating in it is. Yes, you're right that children cannot help being born into a slaving culture, but at a certain age around (14 and upwards) one starts to be culpable for his/her actions.

2) By the way, Dany has never thought that slavery was morally acceptable.

Slaver's Bay isn't a vacuum. The Ghiscari would have to be the biggest idiots in ASOIAF if they didn't know that there are parts in the world where there are no slaves, such as Braavos and Westeros. So sorry, you don't get to claim that they knew nothing else. They must know that there are many lands where slavery is illegal, yet they have chosen to continue their culture, so they aren't absolved of their crimes. People in the antebellum South lived in a culture of slavery, like the Ghiscari, and (according to your logic, they 'knew nothing else'). Does that mean that their crimes against humanity are absolved because slavery was legal for them? Legality does not necessarily equal morality.

But of course, there were definitely okay people in Slaver's Bay who happened to own slaves.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

I'll just quote this :)

So while there would have been children over the age of 12 who would have been technically allowed to wear a tokar, the chance of them actually being present and wearing one, would have been very, very slim to none.

Hey! Maybe they were throwing a party inside the city to celebrate that great trade seal.. and all of them took out their best tokar for the occasion.

[Hodor's Dragon]

1) Being born into a slaving culture is not your fault, participating in it is. Yes, you're right that children cannot help being born into a slaving culture, but at a certain age around (14 and upwards) one starts to be culpable for his/her actions.

2) By the way, Dany has never thought that slavery was morally acceptable.

Slaver's Bay isn't a vacuum. The Ghiscari would have to be the biggest idiots in ASOIAF if they didn't know that there are parts in the world where there are no slaves, such as Braavos and Westeros. So sorry, you don't get to claim that they knew nothing else. They must know that there are many lands where slavery is illegal, yet they have chosen to continue their culture, so they aren't absolved of their crimes. People in the antebellum South lived in a culture of slavery, like the Ghiscari, and (according to your logic, they 'knew nothing else'). Does that mean that their crimes against humanity are absolved because slavery was legal for them? Legality does not necessarily equal morality.

There were definitely okay people in Slaver's Bay who happened to own

Actually, I do absolve the Ghiscari as a group - not their leaders, but the group as a whole. I do the same thing for the antebellum South, WW2 Germany, and basically all the numerous societies throughout history where heinous acts have been perpetrated with general cultural approval. The fact that it has happened so many times in history to so many different kinds of people in so many different places makes me think that the pressure that makes people in groups do things like that - whether it's social or some other kind of pressure - must be too strong for average folks to resist. If average folks can't resist it, I have sympathy for the group.

That doesn't mean you just go "cool" and walk by if there's something you can do about it. But you don't go after them to do "justice" for the "crime" of being a member of a wrongdoing society. You go after them to bring them to heel and thereby to stop the unacceptable practice. That is the objective, not justice, not revenge. Dany was wrong when she said that crucifying the 163 was about justice. That wasn't the point, nor was the sating of her emotional desire for revenge. But when it comes to an act like bringing a recalcitrant group to heel, crucifying the 163 definitely has an impact.

Don't get me wrong, I think that was the wrong thing to do. I've said so quite a few times, and I haven't changed my mind. But there was a logical reason to do it, and an even more logical reason to come down hard on Astapor before that. Of course the main reason was the simple military necessity of striking hard by surprise when you're inside their defenses, but it was important politically, too. People in Slaver's Bay didn't know who she was before Astapor; they damn well did after. Her slave-freeing cause needed to burst on the scene in a big way. That gave both the slaves and the masters of Slaver's Bay something to think about, and that's a good thing.

[Olive-garden]

As I recall, Jorah cam up with the initial decision to buy Unsullied (without any money, fab plan Jorah, really. Smooth!) and so Dany ordered Groleo to sail for Astapor rather than Pentos (where they were originally headed)

Sort of right. Jorah's plans were along the lines of. Steal Illyrio's trade goods and trade them for a couple thousand unsullied. March to Illyrio with the unsullied army to join up with the Golden Company. From there go to Westeros.

[Woofless]

So it's 13 years and upwards, holding whips or wearing a tokar.

13 yr olds in Westeros and Essos seem to be considered adults.

[Game Of Thrones]

The tokar is a formal robe in Ghiscari culture. So killing all 12-year-olds wearing tokars is like killing all 12-year-olds wearing dresses.

[Game Of Thrones]

So it's 13 years and upwards, holding whips or wearing a tokar.

13 yr olds in Westeros and Essos seem to be considered adults.

Nope. The age of majority in Westeros is 16 and probably similar in Essos.

[Woofless]

Nope. The age of majority in Westeros is 16 and probably similar in Essos.

Except for the marriages and beddings that happen to 13 yr olds?

[AerysWasAGreatGuy]

The age of majority in the slavers bay could be 12 seeing as one of the major signs of become an adult is puberty and it is not unheard of to reach puberty at 12.

[Mrs.Grumpy]

Except for the marriages and beddings that happen to 13 yr olds?

But the king needs a regent until he is 16, right? So they consider him as an adult when he is 16.

Tbh, this is one of the things that bugs me about Dany.

[Nictarion]

Nope. The age of majority in Westeros is 16 and probably similar in Essos.

To rule alone as king. Yet girls are married off younger, the NW has had younger LC, etc...

[mormont]

The issue isn't really about moral culpability and/or the age of majority, IMO.

The order is a practical one as much as anything else. It's issued because Dany is taking over the city. She's ordering the Unsullied to take out any resistance. That's why the order specifies 'slay the soldiers' as well as the Good Masters.

Whether they're considered a legal adult or not, a boy of, say, 14, is perfectly capable of fighting and commanding others to fight. We've seen that many times in the series. So he has to be considered potentially part of the resistance. Dany wants to ensure that children who pose no threat are spared (which is more than any other commander sacking a city ever does, by the way). You can certainly argue she ought to have included older boys in that, but it seems to me that the older you go, the more the potential resistance.

[Buried Treasure]

I'd go further, Mormont. A child of 9 or 10 could still pose a threat of they threw a stone or have orders to their household guard, I'd say Day was forbidding harm to young children even if they were causing a threat or resisting.

As for older children; a whip can be dropped in a second. Clothing can be stripped in half a minute. To do either would be to not offer resistance, and under Dany's orders no 12 year old or full grown man who did not offer resistance had to die.

[HexMachina]

The tokar is a formal robe in Ghiscari culture. So killing all 12-year-olds wearing tokars is like killing all 12-year-olds wearing dresses.

While the tokar can be worn by all freeborn men, it's noted in ADwD that the impracticality of the garment means that it is only worn by the wealthy, not by laborers and the like, and the wealthy in Astapor all held slaves as a matter of course.

So Dany's meaning when ordering men wearing tokars to be killed was to get rid of the slave-holding class, who were the ones who'd be wearing the tokar.

I would guess that, just as in Rome (the tokar obviously being based on the toga), poorer citizens who actually labored for a living tended not to actually wear the tokar outside of formal occasions, festivals, and the like. - Ran