Jump to content

Why did George make the slavers in SB so atrocious?


Mithras

Recommended Posts

I gathered from my read of ADwD that there are varying degrees of support for and opposition against slavery within Meereen. Slavers are presented as "black and white" because Daenerys - our chief POV from within the Meereenese court for the vast majority of ADwD - views slavers and the issue of slavery in "black and white" terms. (Slavery is an atrocity, after all.) In truth, the Meereenese are united against Daenerys, regardless of individual stances on the slavery issue. The opposition that Daenerys contends with in Meereen is, first and foremost, an issue of resistance to foreign rule and maintenance of culture, not an issue of slavery.



Pro-slavery factions in Meereen are not "evil" in and of themselves. The struggle to maintain slavery, where those factions do exist, are economic and cultural struggles. The economy essentially crashed when Daenerys ended slavery in Meereen. There is little to no agriculture or trade to maintain the economy or provide its people with food. Also, the ground on which the upper class stands in terms of status and power is shaky at best. Could the lower class and the slaves replace their place in society as it happened in Astapor? If so, status and power would not be the only thing in danger; so would their lives.



To be sure, the apathy towards slaves should have been addressed and, morally speaking, it was best to have ended slavery. What Slaver's Bay ultimately needs is not being told what not to do, but to be given better options. Unfortunately, due to multiple factors involving Daenerys and the Meereenese themselves, this is not happening as it should. For example, Daenerys lacks the political experience, but the Meereenese (as a whole) are not willing to cooperate with her either.



In short, Meereen opposes Daenerys not because they are "evil people" who wish to continue slavery. Meereen opposes Daenerys because her conquest has devastated their economy and destabilized their society.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

You jumped into my conversation with other people, I didn't bring it up for your benefit. I didn't even bring it up in the first place.



Okay, so you're saying that the great grandchildren of the commander of Auschwitz should be persecuted for their ancestors crimes?



I find this concept repulsive, and I don't believe it belongs in today's culture. You have a right to an opinion that "Punishment is not always wrong", and I have a right to not waste my time debating with you. I think we should just agree to disagree; because I will not change my mind on this subject.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slavers are atrocious people. For George to depict them as anything less would be sugar-coating them. The slave masters are nasty people. It just shows the moral superiority of Dany's decision to liberate the slaves of Slaver's Bay.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL no one is saying this.

The difference being?

It's OKAY to punish the slavers for the crimes that have been committed by their forebears over 5,000 years, but it's not okay to persecute the offspring of extermination camp commanders for the crimes of their ancestors in the real world?

What is the logic here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference being?

It's OKAY to punish the slavers for the crimes that have been committed by their forebears over 5,000 years, but it's not okay to persecute the offspring of extermination camp commanders for the crimes of their ancestors in the real world?

What is the logic here?

It's not okay to "persecute" the offspring of concentration camp commanders for their ancestors' crimes. It is justified to use force against them if they start rounding up Jews, and we needn't excuse their actions and aims on the basis of their unfortunate parentage and upbringing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not okay to "persecute" the offspring of concentration camp commanders for their ancestors' crimes. It is justified to use force against them if they start rounding up Jews, and we needn't excuse their actions and aims on the basis of their unfortunate parentage and upbringing.

The start of this argument was "genocide the Ghiscari, they deserve it for being slavers", without any further consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The start of this argument was "genocide the Ghiscari, they deserve it for being slavers", without any further consideration.

If they're slavers, or they are acting to restore the slave regime, violence against them is justified. Indeed, it may be the only violence in this series that is justified. If they're not slavers, and are not acting to restore the slave regime, violence against them is not justified. That's my take -- I have no idea at this point if it matches "the start of the argument."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What were you expecting? A group of friendly and kind slavers?

Well, there were a bunch of real life slave owners that weren't terrible people otherwise, or at least did great things. There are no Ghiscari like that. They're just awful in every aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there were a bunch of real life slave owners that weren't terrible people otherwise, or at least did great things. There are no Ghiscari like that. They're just awful in every aspect.

It simply shows westerosi PoV aren't interested in ghiscari history, or they would recognize the accomplishments of Mazdan the Magnificient or Hizdak the Liberator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It simply shows westerosi PoV aren't interested in ghiscari history, or they would recognize the accomplishments of Mazdan the Magnificient or Hizdak the Liberator.

How would this change Dany's ambition to do away with slavery? It's completely irrevelant.

And it's Zharaq the Liberator. Unless you're being sarcastic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would this change Dany's ambition to do away with slavery? It's completely irrevelant.

And it's Zharaq the Liberator. Unless you're being sarcastic?

I never said it was supposed to "change Dany's ambition to do away with slavery".

I was answering to someone saying :

Well, there were a bunch of real life slave owners that weren't terrible people otherwise, or at least did great things. There are no Ghiscari like that. They're just awful in every aspect.

When it's clear it means nothing in a story seen through PoV eyes.

Tomorrow Martin may teach us that Whateverhisname the Liberator (felicitations) was a great guy or even worse than current slavers. Dany just never wondered who he was.

Or who were the architects who built the temple, pyramids. The greatest local painters and sculptors, philosophers, poets, etc...

Like I'm saying since the beginning of this thread, it's one more example of our view being influenced by PoV narration (and essosi looking worse / more one-dimensional because they are seen through westerosi eyes).

And it has nothing to do with the fact slavery is a bad thing. Bad things may be done by humans also having qualities, like shown dozens of times in asoiaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UK, NL, DE, FR, IT, AT, AU, BE, CA, CH, CY, CZ, DK, EL, ES, FI, HU, IE, LI, LU, MT, NO, PL, PT, SE disagree and those are just the countries I'm certain that it happened peacefully.

The only country I know of to have it done non-peacefully is actually the US.

Haiti did it non peacefully

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the slavers truly so atrocious? Or are they just normal humans, as nasty as any other, seen from the outside perspective, strangers? And aren't strangers automatically evil?

They are no worse than the mob shouting on an execution or Cersei's WoS in Westeros. They are no worse than the soldiers commiting war crimes in the Riverlands. They are no worse than the Ironborn practising human sacrifice. They are no worse than the Lyseni brothel owners. They are no worse than the Dothraki genocides.

What they are is foreign.

That is a very good point. Daenarys's Meereen chapters seem to have a sort of "Targaryen Burden" feel to it: Daenarys didn't like the Ghiscari society, so she took it upon herself to "uplift and civilize" the foreign mongrels (the narration actually refers to the Ghiscari race as mongrels).

"As the mother of Dragons, it is my racial duty to civilize this lesser race by any means necessary. Even if it means committing inhuman atrocities."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it was supposed to "change Dany's ambition to do away with slavery".

I was answering to someone saying :

When it's clear it means nothing in a story seen through PoV eyes.

Tomorrow Martin may teach us that Whateverhisname the Liberator (felicitations) was a great guy or even worse than current slavers. Dany just never wondered who he was.

Or who were the architects who built the temple, pyramids. The greatest local painters and sculptors, philosophers, poets, etc...

Like I'm saying since the beginning of this thread, it's one more example of our view being influenced by PoV narration (and essosi looking worse / more one-dimensional because they are seen through westerosi eyes).

And it has nothing to do with the fact slavery is a bad thing. Bad things may be done by humans also having qualities, like shown dozens of times in asoiaf.

But what does it matter? Who cares about the Liberator or pyramid builders?

I've said this before: we don't need an Essosi POV to get the scope of the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...