Dany and child murder

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

7 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

What Greyworm thinks is questionable because two seconds ago he would have killed himself if ordered. Now he understands exactly what autonomy is...suuure. Saying they’re bought, then saying they’re free, then having them continue to do nothing but follow her orders, is the most confusing thing ever. There are enough “off” things in the whole affair, it’s not crazy to wonder if the author is suggesting that Dany is just a new master.

 

The psychological issues the Unsullied must have is probably beyond anything we can imagine. So, while what Greyworm thinks may be questionable it still shows he believes he is free, Daenerys believes she freed them, George was attempting to show she freed them, & Greyworm believes he has been freed. There is talk all over slavers bay after this about Daenerys, the breaker of chains. All these things clearly lead to the fact that slaves were free.

I believe having them kill the slavers was Daenerys's last "order" to the slaves. I understand why it's a little ambiguous but I think when you take all the information as a whole it's pretty clear the author is showing Dany as a liberator, having freed the slaves. 

I don't think them being "bought" & being free are contradicting in this sense. The Golden Company gets "bought" but is still free. The Unsullied have been "hired" to do a job & while it isn't explicitly stated that they are free to go at anytime if they so wish it seems Dany & the Unsullied both believe it is so. 

[SeanF]

People tangle themselves in ethical knots to portray Daenerys as the bad guy at Astapor.

[Hugorfonics]

20 hours ago, teej6 said:

You are right in saying that most people/societies will tolerate whatever injustice exists, especially if they are the beneficiaries of the system. However, when it comes to slavery, I feel that for most people, even those in earlier societies (say like slavery in the South in the US), they will have to dehumanize an entire group of people in order for them to justify slavery and the treatment they mete out to their slaves. There is always some level of self-awareness when inflicting such amounts of wanton cruelty and pain on others. The only way most people can justify or defend such cruelty is by dehumanizing the population on whom such cruelty is perpetrated. In the books, we have the example of the Dothraki looking at the lamb people as lesser beings that are not worthy of receiving the standards and code the Dothraki apply to their own. Defeating and killing an enemy is very different from subjugating and enslaving entire populations. 

The Ghiscari enslave foreigners and their own however. 

And in old America some free blacks owned slaves, as did the "cultured indians" (natives who owned plantations in the south)

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The psychological issues the Unsullied must have is probably beyond anything we can imagine. So, while what Greyworm thinks may be questionable it still shows he believes he is free, Daenerys believes she freed them, George was attempting to show she freed them, & Greyworm believes he has been freed. There is talk all over slavers bay after this about Daenerys, the breaker of chains. All these things clearly lead to the fact that slaves were free.

I believe having them kill the slavers was Daenerys's last "order" to the slaves. I understand why it's a little ambiguous but I think when you take all the information as a whole it's pretty clear the author is showing Dany as a liberator, having freed the slaves. 

I don't think them being "bought" & being free are contradicting in this sense. The Golden Company gets "bought" but is still free. The Unsullied have been "hired" to do a job & while it isn't explicitly stated that they are free to go at anytime if they so wish it seems Dany & the Unsullied both believe it is so. 

The psychology of the unsullied is truly a marvel. They said freedom means nothing to unsullied, but Greyworm shows us thats not the case.

Speaking of Greyworm, they explicitly said dont make unsullied captains, which Dany promptly ignored. I wonder why Dany was warned of that? She was also warned that the Unsullied will become soft and influenced by household slaves, however as of now, Greyworm and the rest are firmly Unsullied like.

Quote

The queen had not known that the eunuchs had a goddess of their own. "Who is this goddess? One of the gods of Ghis?"

Grey Worm looked troubled. "The goddess is called by many names. She is the Lady of Spears, the Bride of Battle, the Mother of Hosts, but her true name belongs only to these poor ones who have burned their manhoods upon her altar. We may not speak of her to others. This one begs your forgiveness."

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Plato thought that freeing slaves was a bad thing.  That is not an opinion that has aged well.

The reason his point still has relevance is because leaders today rise to power by offering grandiose promises to an oppressed or marginalized class, who are so starry-eyed in their devotion, they don’t realize that they are following a tyrant who actually has their own agenda.  Plato predicted that such a person would “free” slaves to gain power for themselves. I think the key to Dany’s developing darkness is in these chapters. She’s obviously not fully at that stage but it sure is interesting that’s she’s doing exactly what Plato said a tyrant would do.

[Hugorfonics]

10 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The reason his point still has relevance is because leaders today rise to power by offering grandiose promises to an oppressed or marginalized class, who are so starry-eyed in their devotion, they don’t realize that they are following a tyrant who actually has their own agenda.  Plato predicted that such a person would “free” slaves to gain power for themselves. I think the key to Dany’s developing darkness is in these chapters. She’s obviously not fully at that stage but it sure is interesting that’s she’s doing exactly what Plato said a tyrant would do.

Thats interesting. Sic semper tyrannis! Lol, they called Lincoln a tyrant, and honestly they make some good points. 

But to any descendent of an American slave, or a Ghiscari one, they will always view the slave masters as the tyrants. And honestly, 150 years later, most descendents of the slave masters see their ancestors as tyrants as well.

Does this exempt Lincoln suspending habeas corpas or Dany crucifying 163 people from the title of tyrant? Course not, but it puts it in perspective

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Thats interesting. Sic semper tyrannis! Lol, they called Lincoln a tyrant, and honestly they make some good points. 

But to any descendent of an American slave, or a Ghiscari one, they will always view the slave masters as the tyrants. And honestly, 150 years later, most descendents of the slave masters see their ancestors as tyrants as well.

Does this exempt Lincoln suspending habeas corpas or Dany crucifying 163 people from the title of tyrant? Course not, but it puts it in perspective

Oh not saying that a lot of good could be done by Dany’s actions, it’s just that it’s a grey area because we know she’s doing some of these things, so that she can gain power and invade Westeros. The people following her have no idea about her motives or plans. I guess the parallel would be if Lincoln freed slaves, then used them as his own army to invade a foreign country. We’d look at that historical period and say, oh wow he’s got some problems lol

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

The psychology of the unsullied is truly a marvel. They said freedom means nothing to unsullied, but Greyworm shows us thats not the case.

Speaking of Greyworm, they explicitly said dont make unsullied captains, which Dany promptly ignored. I wonder why Dany was warned of that? She was also warned that the Unsullied will become soft and influenced by household slaves, however as of now, Greyworm and the rest are firmly Unsullied like.

It definitely is. I'm not sure why they said not to make the Unsullied captains - maybe because they think they can't think for themselves? The Unsullied that Dany encountered previously were soft & un-unsullied like so I suppose maybe it is something that happens often, although I don't know why it would in EVERY case. I'm sure there are some who, after the traumatizing training they went through, get a cushy job in comparison & relish in the fact they are no longer pushed to their body's limits daily. Relaxing & not training vigorously anymore would decrease their muscle mass, stamina etc but surely there are just as many who may enjoy the easier job but still keep their self in fighting shape? Idk it's strange. 

[John Suburbs]

21 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I may be misunderstanding but I don't think that poster is saying poverty is a choice, only that as bad as poverty is, it isn't enslavement; they have civil rights, they have basic human rights. Something slaves are not given.  

So no, the children in Guatemala & Indian probably do not want to be there but they still aren't enslaved. One could argue that they do have choices available to them, possibly ones they are unaware of. 

How has Martin pointed out that slavery is a choice? I feel like saying "They chose to be there?" in regards to the children & then in the next sentence saying slavery is a choice & we all have choices is contradictory. While I disagree that slavery is a choice I do agree we all have choices. A slave may have several choices but none of which are typically whether or not to be a slave. I would imagine the majority of the choices they do have are only what is given to them by their master & would differ according to the person owning them. 

At any rate, while poverty can definitely be devastating & in some cases maybe even as devastating as slavery it is still different. There are rights & rules that protect free people, even people in poverty while there are none for slaves. 

 

Quote

Yezzan's slaves ate better than many peasants back in the Seven Kingdoms, and were less likely to starve to death come winter. Slaves were chattel, aye. They could be bought and sold, whipped and branded, used for the carnal pleasure of their owners, bred to make more slaves. In that sense they were not more than dogs or horses. But most lords treated their dogs and horses well enough. Proud men might shout that they would sooner die free than live as slaves, but pride was cheap. When the steel struck the flint, such men were rare as dragon's teeth; elsewise the world would not have been so full of slaves. There has never been a slave who did not choose to be a slave, the dwarf reflected. Their choice may be between bondage and death, but the choice is always there.

And this,

Quote

The most insidious thing about bondage was how easy it was to grow accustomed to it. The live of most slaves was not all that different from the life of a serving man at Casterly Rock, it seemed to him. True, some slaveowners and their overseers were brutal and cruel, but the same was true of some Westerosi lords and their stewards and bailiffs. Most of the Yunkai'i treated their chattels decently enough, so lone as they did their jobs and caused no trouble . . . and this old man in his rusted collar, with his fierce loyalty to Lord Wobblecheeks, his owner, was not at all atypical.

Civil rights? Rights and rules of free people? What rights and rules protect the small folk of Westeros from being raped or murdered by their lord? What rights and rules brought Gregor Clegane or Roose Bolton to justice for their crimes? Slaves get whipped and beaten, sure, so do small folk. What crime did Septa Mordane commit that she deserved her head on a spike? What about the Blue Bard? This is a world where things like civil rights don't exist, except for the very wealthy. Day to day, hour by hour, minute by minute, the life of a slave is no worse than the life of a free Westerosi: work hard and obey the rules and you may lead a comfortable life, but there are no guarantees.

I never said poverty was the same as slavery. But people who are trapped in poverty have the same choice to end it as people trapped in slavery.

 

 

 

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

 

And this,

Civil rights? Rights and rules of free people? What rights and rules protect the small folk of Westeros from being raped or murdered by their lord? What rights and rules brought Gregor Clegane or Roose Bolton to justice for their crimes? Slaves get whipped and beaten, sure, so do small folk. What crime did Septa Mordane commit that she deserved her head on a spike? What about the Blue Bard? This is a world where things like civil rights don't exist, except for the very wealthy. Day to day, hour by hour, minute by minute, the life of a slave is no worse than the life of a free Westerosi: work hard and obey the rules and you may lead a comfortable life, but there are no guarantees.

I never said poverty was the same as slavery. But people who are trapped in poverty have the same choice to end it as people trapped in slavery.

 

 

 

That may tell us more about how the Lannisters treat their servants than how the Yunkai treat their slaves.

[John Suburbs]

17 hours ago, trazayn said:

As @Lyanna<3Rhaegar said I explicitly did not say that poverty was a choice. Only that it is not the same thing as slavery. 

 

I never said they were the same, just that people trapped in poverty have the same choice to end it as people trapped in slavery.

What civil rights do the commoners of Westeros have? What law do they appeal to when their lord rapes them or murders their kin? See above for the quotes about how the lives of slaves in Essos were in many ways better than the small folk of Westeros. Rights and laws are abstractions to the mostly illiterate people in these societies. They are more interested in eating and staying warm and protected. Slaves outnumber freemen in Volantis five to one. If it was such an unbearable state for the slaves, then there would not be any. The fact is, and as the text makes clear, many slaves are perfectly satisfied with their lot, and even rise to positions of importance within their households, unlike the commoners of Westeros; once a pig boy, always a pig boy.

[John Suburbs]

15 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That may tell us more about how the Lannisters treat their servants than how the Yunkai treat their slaves.

No, it's like this all over. Get a good lord and you are fine, get a bad one and you suffer. Serve in Winterfell, you get Ned; serve in the Dreadfort, you get Roose. Serve at Casterly Rock, you get Tywin (who doesn't appear to treat servants any more or less harshly than other lords), serve at Clegane's Keep, you get Gregor, serve at Cornfield, you get Harys Swift. In each of these houses, you can be beaten if you misbehave, cause trouble or even attempt to leave without permission. And nobody gets paid. 

[Hugorfonics]

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Oh not saying that a lot of good could be done by Dany’s actions, it’s just that it’s a grey area because we know she’s doing some of these things, so that she can gain power and invade Westeros. The people following her have no idea about her motives or plans. 

Sure they do! She wont shut up about it lol. She went to Aspator to buy an army for Westeros, and her captains and knights are constantly reminding her that her war is across the Narrow, her army and freedmen followers know this

Also invading Westeros in itself is kind of a grey area. Invaders (and tyrants) arent always bad. Westeros is in turmoil, it could use a new government

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I guess the parallel would be if Lincoln freed slaves, then used them as his own army to invade a foreign country. We’d look at that historical period and say, oh wow he’s got some problems lol

He didn't lol? But no, he didnt. He invaded his own country and then freed the slaves. But Dany isn't really planning invading a foreign country either, but, like Abe, starting a civil war where she has legality on her side. Sure some would say its an illigal war as Roberts laws barred Targs from the throne, but South Carolina and the rest of the Confedracy created laws that freed them from Washington.

And almost every historical persons got some problems. 

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It definitely is. I'm not sure why they said not to make the Unsullied captains - maybe because they think they can't think for themselves? The Unsullied that Dany encountered previously were soft & un-unsullied like so I suppose maybe it is something that happens often, although I don't know why it would in EVERY case. I'm sure there are some who, after the traumatizing training they went through, get a cushy job in comparison & relish in the fact they are no longer pushed to their body's limits daily. Relaxing & not training vigorously anymore would decrease their muscle mass, stamina etc but surely there are just as many who may enjoy the easier job but still keep their self in fighting shape? Idk it's strange. 

Word. They also said that recruiting the half trained Unsullied will have negative effects on the rest of the army, but she ignored that too

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

Civil rights? Rights and rules of free people? What rights and rules protect the small folk of Westeros from being raped or murdered by their lord? What rights and rules brought Gregor Clegane or Roose Bolton to justice for their crimes? Slaves get whipped and beaten, sure, so do small folk. What crime did Septa Mordane commit that she deserved her head on a spike? What about the Blue Bard? This is a world where things like civil rights don't exist, except for the very wealthy. Day to day, hour by hour, minute by minute, the life of a slave is no worse than the life of a free Westerosi: work hard and obey the rules and you may lead a comfortable life, but there are no guarantees.

I never said poverty was the same as slavery. But people who are trapped in poverty have the same choice to end it as people trapped in slavery.

That isn't entirely true. Ned does send people to stop Gregor & Roose only commits his atrocities out in the open AFTER he knows he has the backing of the crown. They are not afforded the same rights as IRL but they do have some. There are people who will stick up for the small folk, to date no one but Dany attempts to stick up for the slaves.

 

I've asked once but you didn't answer: What choices do the enslaved have to end their slavery? The only one I can think of is suicide. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, John Suburbs said:

I never said they were the same, just that people trapped in poverty have the same choice to end it as people trapped in slavery.

What civil rights do the commoners of Westeros have? What law do they appeal to when their lord rapes them or murders their kin? See above for the quotes about how the lives of slaves in Essos were in many ways better than the small folk of Westeros. Rights and laws are abstractions to the mostly illiterate people in these societies. They are more interested in eating and staying warm and protected. Slaves outnumber freemen in Volantis five to one. If it was such an unbearable state for the slaves, then there would not be any. The fact is, and as the text makes clear, many slaves are perfectly satisfied with their lot, and even rise to positions of importance within their households, unlike the commoners of Westeros; once a pig boy, always a pig boy.

No what you said was "So poverty is a choice then? Tell that to children of ..." What I was saying is the poster never said poverty was a choice. You then in turn say slaves are given the same choices are those that are poverty stricken, which is also not true. 

Sorry had to post before I got finished. You can't really believe that just because the slaves outnumbered the Slavers & they didn't revolt that they were perfectly satisfied. I disagree that the text makes that perfectly clear. I would highly doubt any slave, but most especially the unsullied are perfectly satisfied. 

Of course there are commoners of Westeros who are happy with their position & living situations? Just to be clear what you are telling me is that being a commoner in Westeros is worse than being a slave because they can rise to positions of importance while the Westeros common folk cannot? 

[Rose of Red Lake]

30 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Sure they do! She wont shut up about it lol. She went to Aspator to buy an army for Westeros, and her captains and knights are constantly reminding her that her war is across the Narrow, her army and freedmen followers know this

Huh? The people shouting "mhysa" know that she didn't plan to free slaves originally? They're all fully aware that she couldn't afford slave soldiers for her own personal war? They knew she was planning on abandoning Astapor and Yunkai?

In ADWD, there are angry slaves that have audience with her because of the promises they thought she made to them, that she broke, and will probably break again. So yes, there is an element of slaves feeling manipulated. She used sloganeering and marketing without substance or a plan, to rise herself to power. At least she's smart enough to know how to do that. 

 

35 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Also invading Westeros in itself is kind of a grey area. Invaders (and tyrants) arent always bad. Westeros is in turmoil, it could use a new government

Somehow I doubt tyrants=good is the message the book is going to leave us with at the end (if it ever gets finished).

[SeanF]

7 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I never said they were the same, just that people trapped in poverty have the same choice to end it as people trapped in slavery.

What civil rights do the commoners of Westeros have? What law do they appeal to when their lord rapes them or murders their kin? See above for the quotes about how the lives of slaves in Essos were in many ways better than the small folk of Westeros. Rights and laws are abstractions to the mostly illiterate people in these societies. They are more interested in eating and staying warm and protected. Slaves outnumber freemen in Volantis five to one. If it was such an unbearable state for the slaves, then there would not be any. The fact is, and as the text makes clear, many slaves are perfectly satisfied with their lot, and even rise to positions of importance within their households, unlike the commoners of Westeros; once a pig boy, always a pig boy.

We know that Volantis is on the brink of revolution, by its slaves (eg the Widow on the Waterfront says they're all waiting for Daenerys).  Many of Meereen's slaves rise up, when she attacks the city.  So, a great many slaves are unhappy with their lot.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Huh? The people shouting "mhysa" know that she didn't plan to free slaves originally? They're all fully aware that she couldn't afford slave soldiers for her own personal war? They knew she was planning on abandoning Astapor and Yunkai?

In ADWD, there are angry slaves that have audience with her because of the promises they thought she made to them, that she broke, and will probably break again. So yes, there is an element of slaves feeling manipulated. She used sloganeering and marketing without substance or a plan, to rise herself to power. At least she's smart enough to know how to do that. 

 

Somehow I doubt tyrants=good is the message the book is going to leave us with at the end (if it ever gets finished).

GRRM does make the point that tyrants can be good kings.  Not that I think that Daenerys will necessarily become a tyrant.

[Wall Flower]

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Huh? The people shouting "mhysa" know that she didn't plan to free slaves originally? They're all fully aware that she couldn't afford slave soldiers for her own personal war? They knew she was planning on abandoning Astapor and Yunkai?

In ADWD, there are angry slaves that have audience with her because of the promises they thought she made to them, that she broke, and will probably break again. So yes, there is an element of slaves feeling manipulated. She used sloganeering and marketing without substance or a plan, to rise herself to power. At least she's smart enough to know how to do that. 

 

Somehow I doubt tyrants=good is the message the book is going to leave us with at the end (if it ever gets finished).

The very fact that angry former-slaves could come to her with their grievances argues against her being a tyrant - more an imperfect saviour who acted without a fully realised plan and was faced with an intractable situation.

Pretty sure those same slaves would never have had the opportunity to bring any complaints to the grand masters or, at least, not if they didn't want to face brutal punishment.

[SeanF]

32 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

The very fact that angry former-slaves could come to her with their grievances argues against her being a tyrant - more an imperfect saviour who acted without a fully realised plan and was faced with an intractable situation.

Pretty sure those same slaves would never have had the opportunity to bring any complaints to the grand masters or, at least, not if they didn't want to face brutal punishment.

Not to mention, she forgives the young man who tries to assault her, after the murder of his family by his slaves, and Ghael, who spits in her face.  I can't imagine Joseph Stalin doing that.

[Wall Flower]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Not to mention, she forgives the young man who tries to assault her, after the murder of his family by his slaves, and Ghael, who spits in her face.  I can't imagine Joseph Stalin doing that.

Or Tywin Lannister!