Dany and child murder

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

You know, I'm not so sure. If violence is the only course of action open to you then you re-create the rule of might is right. Turning slavers into slaves would only be bloody vengeance.  You'd be saying "slavery is fine, so long as we're not the ones being enslaved." There must be examples of a better way to follow. How does a greater society develop into something more if it's focus is to turn tables instead of building new ones?

My idea - and what I think George is trying to sell us and build up towards in future novels - is that trying to pacify the slavers and trying to compromise with them is going to lead nowhere. It is a dead end because that culture and the people perpetuating it suck, and things are not going to ever look brighter if they are allowed to remain.

Which means they will have to go all. And that's what's going to happen in the future. And while it might be cruel and bloody it is not going to be, in principle, bad. Because it will be necessary to build a new society and culture, one that's not build on slavery and does not consider slavery a possibility.

52 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Nice, I've never thought about like that. In my eurocentric world view I draw parallels between slavers bay and ancient Greece and Rome (esp gladiator games and "democracy* unlike you barbarians"-mentality) and to the vikings (keeping thralls, having people living in their households but treated like cattle).

I just recently saw that parallel, too, and it really fits in light of the fact that George also wrote about American slavery shortly before the Civil War in Fevre Dream. He clearly knows more about American slavery than about the variations in more ancient times.

52 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Quite ironically the antiquity and viking culture were not ended by bloody revolutions but was changed by feudalism and christianity: the same religion that was later totally cool with having african slaves in USA.

Things would be more complex than that. With time, hereditary monarchies and proper states along with their institutions developed, trade became more important and international, etc. Christianity never had principal issues with slavery - you can (and people do) use the Bible to this day to justify it.

52 minutes ago, Sigella said:

I have to disagree with your last part. If they rose and won it would either result in their new own country being cut out of Alabama (and made war on because sugar and cotton) or demand equality no one's gonna give to butchers and be made war on. If they demand ships to go back to Africa and gets there there is no place for them, the culture isn't their culture anymore and the place is heavily colonised by the same people that enslaved them in the first place. They couldn't go Gandhi since (free)people demonised them and no one gave a squat if they were mistreated. So their best option would be to do a Nymeria and find a new land which isn't all lemon cakes and would do very little towards ending racism. I can't think of a single scenario where it would.

I have said it before: I envy your sunny disposition.

Oh, the last part was just a little bit of provocation. The point I was trying to make is that it is very important for a culture or society to free themselves of tyranny than being the ones who are freed. Lincoln's paternalism may have ended slavery but it did little to prevent the enshrinement of racial inequality until about a century later - and what I know about American society implies parts are still overwhelmingly and outspokenly racist.

If slavery had ended in the US the way the US themselves freed themselves from the English yoke - or the way the French overthrow the ancien regime - the cultural framework of the society might be considerable different - and in a positive way.

And while Dany shares some parallels with Lincoln there, she is also the catalyst for revolutionary change - in Volantis and the other Free Cities the slaves don't need her to free them, they could just use her as a symbol or icon for change and take matters in their own hands.

But overall it is quite clear that George is not in favor of Dany's desire to have some quiet years, of her trying to compromise with or pacify the slavers. Xaro Xhoan Daxos gives one of the ugliest slave apologies imaginable, and people thinking along those lines fail to understand that this view is, insofar as the author and humanity itself is concerned, dead wrong.

Slavery has to go.

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I've already read the Meereenese Blot, thanks.  First of all, the author of those essays is not GRRM so why are you quoting them a if they've already read TWOW?

Because according to GRRM in So Spake Martin, this essayist understood exactly what he was trying to do with Meereen. Its not an interview, but its still the best approximation to what we have on his views for this arc.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Second, I think they're wrong. As I alluded to before, Dany's marriage to Hizdar and her massive concessions to the slavers hasn't created real lasting peace (and what respite they've given her came at the cost of restoring Great Masters almost to their former status).

Why did he bother writing this if Dany's choices dont even matter or have consequences? No point showing her success, no point in carefully laying out the storyline in which she had to use her wits, because if it was all an illusion, and nothing she did matters, there was no point to anything. Just the author wanking to himself and waiting for the big fire and blood moment which was coming no matter what Dany did. That's maybe how you read it on the first reading, but after multiple readings, the text supports an illustration of accomplishments, thrown away because she chose dragons.

The author gave her a rebuilding storyline and she did effective things to rule. But since people don't want to admit that POSSIBLY Dany's perspective is skewed at the end (her house words represent doom, not success for Targaryens) and would rather be an uncritical reader and take whatever she thinks as gospel, she now has to destroy more people than necessary, and even kill people who would have worked with her.

My point about the slavers being humiliated is to show why its not just about keeping slaves, and nothing Dany does matters (again). If she had understood Barth's wisdom she might have had less people joining the Harpy. Its pretty normal to read a story with an eye to how a characters actions have consequences.

[Hugorfonics]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But unlike with Lincoln, there won't be a reconstruction after the war - no, the slavers will all be killed, along with all the people who don't give up the concept of slavery or want to continue it in changed form. This can, of course, also include slaves who are set in their ways and oppose change.

What do you think happend in the reconstruction? Lol President Grant didnt even let them vote (like they tried stopping ex slaves from voting)

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It would have been better if the American slaves had risen up collectively against their slavers, butchering their masters in the dozens and hundreds, and doing to their families the same thing their masters had done to them for generations - but that never happened. Had it happened America might be less racist today.

Nat Turner and John Brown did their best to free slaves and kill masters (although John Brown was no slave ) but obviously failed. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah it's a great (as of yet unfinished) series. It takes place directly after WWII ended & follows a wartime nurse named Claire. She ends up accidentally stepping through a mini stone henge & travelling back in time about 200 years. That's where the real fun begins. If you read it & have a hard time with the first couple chapters - keep reading! The first 2 or 3 chapters are kind of boring but after that it's amazing. I've never read Romance of Three Kingdoms, I'll have to check it out!

Ok, sounds cool. Im a sucker for historical fiction.

Thats what Romance is too. It takes place around the year 200, but it was written in the 1300s on the other side of the globe. So part of the fun reading is deciding whether to judge the book by our western 21st century standard, or by the 1300s or 200s, or whatever the Chinese standard is (which I unfortunately know little, but have been learning more since I read it) the other fun part is the amazing story and the literal thousands of fascinating characters (though only a handful are main characters)

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

My idea - and what I think George is trying to sell us and build up towards in future novels - is that trying to pacify the slavers and trying to compromise with them is going to lead nowhere. It is a dead end because that culture and the people perpetuating it suck, and things are not going to ever look brighter if they are allowed to remain.

Which means they will have to go all. And that's what's going to happen in the future. And while it might be cruel and bloody it is not going to be, in principle, bad. Because it will be necessary to build a new society and culture, one that's not build on slavery and does not consider slavery a possibility.

What an amazing message, "this culture sucks and should be annihilated!" I'm a Southerner and I would still be uncomfortable if people talked about the South that way, especially coming from people who just parked their ass there and have no idea about the history. There were white abolitionists and freedom fighters in the south who resisted slavery and also Jim Crow. So now we're back to Dany burning everyone who is white - is this also GRRM approved? 

Thankfully, he's probably not portraying an allegory for the Civil War - otherwise there would be an Essos POV. Instead, this whole whole thing is probably there to develop her as a future mass murderer over on the other continent, where she destroys her own legacy, name, and house. 

[Lord Browndodd]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

...

Which means they will have to go all. And that's what's going to happen in the future. And while it might be cruel and bloody it is not going to be, in principle, bad. Because it will be necessary to build a new society and culture, one that's not build on slavery and does not consider slavery a possibility.

I just recently saw that parallel, too, and it really fits in light of the fact that George also wrote about American slavery shortly before the Civil War in Fevre Dream. He clearly knows more about American slavery than about the variations in more ancient times.

..

There's also a critique of Cortes and the fall of the Aztec Empire mixed in there - in the Meereen chapters, GRRM has been pulling bits of Prescott's The History of the Conquest of Mexico apart and reassembling them.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

My idea - and what I think George is trying to sell us and build up towards in future novels - is that trying to pacify the slavers and trying to compromise with them is going to lead nowhere. It is a dead end because that culture and the people perpetuating it suck, and things are not going to ever look brighter if they are allowed to remain.

Which means they will have to go all. And that's what's going to happen in the future. And while it might be cruel and bloody it is not going to be, in principle, bad. Because it will be necessary to build a new society and culture, one that's not build on slavery and does not consider slavery a possibility.

I just recently saw that parallel, too, and it really fits in light of the fact that George also wrote about American slavery shortly before the Civil War in Fevre Dream. He clearly knows more about American slavery than about the variations in more ancient times.

Things would be more complex than that. With time, hereditary monarchies and proper states along with their institutions developed, trade became more important and international, etc. Christianity never had principal issues with slavery - you can (and people do) use the Bible to this day to justify it.

Oh, the last part was just a little bit of provocation. The point I was trying to make is that it is very important for a culture or society to free themselves of tyranny than being the ones who are freed. Lincoln's paternalism may have ended slavery but it did little to prevent the enshrinement of racial inequality until about a century later - and what I know about American society implies parts are still overwhelmingly and outspokenly racist.

If slavery had ended in the US the way the US themselves freed themselves from the English yoke - or the way the French overthrow the ancien regime - the cultural framework of the society might be considerable different - and in a positive way.

And while Dany shares some parallels with Lincoln there, she is also the catalyst for revolutionary change - in Volantis and the other Free Cities the slaves don't need her to free them, they could just use her as a symbol or icon for change and take matters in their own hands.

But overall it is quite clear that George is not in favor of Dany's desire to have some quiet years, of her trying to compromise with or pacify the slavers. Xaro Xhoan Daxos gives one of the ugliest slave apologies imaginable, and people thinking along those lines fail to understand that this view is, insofar as the author and humanity itself is concerned, dead wrong.

Slavery has to go.

I disagree with you about quite a bit here, but you are spot on, about Xaro.

It irritates me how many people believe that Xaro is telling the truth about slavery and Meereen.  The guy is a professional sophist, who of course runs rings round a not very well educated teenager. But, on close examination, his arguments are as riddled with lies and bad moral arguments as Tyrion's "evil men" speech in the show.

[Victor Newman]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There has to be bloodshed to get rid of slavery. Dany is basically George's Abraham Lincoln - and last time I looked Abe didn't get the South to abandon slavery during polite conversation drinking tea.

But unlike with Lincoln, there won't be a reconstruction after the war - no, the slavers will all be killed, along with all the people who don't give up the concept of slavery or want to continue it in changed form. This can, of course, also include slaves who are set in their ways and oppose change.

Revolutions and real societal change doesn't come cheap. Blood has to be spilled.

It would have been better if the American slaves had risen up collectively against their slavers, butchering their masters in the dozens and hundreds, and doing to their families the same thing their masters had done to them for generations - but that never happened. Had it happened America might be less racist today.

When we say the slavers have to be killed it does not literally mean all of them.  It means breaking their ability to fight.  The goal is to weaken them and enforce some kind of limitations on the survivors so they can't gain power again.  Kill enough of them, the fathers and the sons and daughters of a certain age who resists.  Enough will end their resistance in order to survive but what you don't want is for them to survive so they can fight back tomorrow.  I say take their wealth and send the boys to different corners of the world.  Banish a few to Westeros, send a few to the Iron Isles, maybe the able bodied boys should be sent to the Wall.  That's the way to destroy the culture.  

You might be right about slavery in America.  If the slaves had won their freedom the whites might respect them more in the aftermath.  But the slaves never outnumbered the whites in America.  So it would be impossible for them to win their freedom.  Racism, I don't see much.  Did you all elect a black president ten years ago.  The racism is now against Asians and Hispanics.  

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

What do you think happend in the reconstruction? Lol President Grant didnt even let them vote (like they tried stopping ex slaves from voting).

From what little I know about American history (I'm German) the reconstruction was all about reintegrating the South back into the Union. Is that more or less correct?

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Nat Turner and John Brown did their best to free slaves and kill masters (although John Brown was no slave ) but obviously failed.

Yeah, my idea was something like a real revolution - the French of American Revolution. If people take the power that should be theirs anyway rather than being granted it or given by some paternalistic ruler then things are different. The narrative of American or French democratic tradition is so strong because they took their liberties and freedoms, getting rid of the previous system. That is much different from the various constitutional monarchies of Europe or those who only were given democracy by grace of the club of the victors (as the case here in Germany).

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

What an amazing message, "this culture sucks and should be annihilated!" I'm a Southerner and I would still be uncomfortable if people talked about the South that way, especially coming from people who just parked their ass there and have no idea about the history. There were white abolitionists and freedom fighters in the south who resisted slavery and also Jim Crow. So now we're back to Dany burning everyone who is white - is this also GRRM approved?

Who cares? There were also some 'good Germans', yet I as a descendant of them say my grandparents and great-grandparents deserved to be butchered by the surviving Jews and all the denizens of Europe they helped to attack and slaughter.

I'd say it is rather telling that you yourself actually identify yourself as 'a Southerner'. You are an American - the CSA have been dead for over 150 years. If you are 'a Southerner' in that sense, you are making about as much sense as I would if I were claiming that my fealty still belongs to the Hapsburg Empire.

It is not good enough to be an abolitionist - living in a society that permits and perpetuates and thrives on slavery is disgusting by default.

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Thankfully, he's not probably not portraying an allegory for the Civil War - otherwise there would be an Essos POV. Instead, this whole whole thing is probably there to develop her as a future mass murderer over on the other continent, where she destroys her own legacy, name, and house. 

There would be nothing wrong if she became a mass murderer and butchered the slavers and destroyed their entire culture and civilization. There is nothing to salvage there, and those people have been described, rather collectively, as cruel, evil, degenerate, and petty. They are, collectively, worse than the Freys and Boltons (and these guys are already pretty much dehumanized).

Nobody in-universe (and very few readers) are going to miss the unreformed Meereenese or the Yunkai'i.

The funny thing is that Dany pretty much resembles her ancestor King Aenys in ADwD. Always trying to please, always trying to reason, always compromising ... while her enemies laugh behind her back and plot to poison her.

It would be neither surprising nor particularly bad if she goes all Maegor on them - they would deserve it. But I'm not really holding my breath that she will be needed to crush them. The Ironborn and Selmy and Tyrion are going to deal with the Yunkish allies very soon, and the Volantene slaves should be mop up the remains. When Dany returns to Slaver's Bay Meereen might already be a smoking ruin - and Tyrion and Victarion and Selmy and Daario might already have dealt with Yunkai and might already have sent armies to New Ghis to destroy that city.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I disagree with you about quite a bit here, but you are spot on, about Xaro.

It irritates me how many people believe that Xaro is telling the truth about slavery and Meereen.  The guy is a professional sophist, who of course runs rings round a not very well educated teenager. But, on close examination, his arguments are as riddled with lies and bad moral arguments as Tyrion's "evil men" speech in the show.

George is occasionally too subtle for some readers. There are people idealizing the wildling way of life despite the fact that there are very savage aspects to it, just as people are, at times, far to eager to think in the feudal categories, identifying with the characters rather than keeping their distance.

But I honestly don't get it how people cannot see how slavery apology is wrong in principle. Even the Westerosi can see that. And Slaver's Bay slavery culture is so ridiculously cruel and over the top (their entire society is parasitic, enslaving people to sell them to others) that there is really nothing to salvage or even take serious there. George even takes his times ridiculing all those Yunkai'i noblemen (and the one woman) leading the chattel of Yunkai to war.

4 minutes ago, Victor Newman said:

When we say the slavers have to be killed it does not literally mean all of them.  It means breaking their ability to fight.  The goal is to weaken them and enforce some kind of limitations on the survivors so they can't gain power again.  Kill enough of them, the fathers and the sons and daughters of a certain age who resists.  Enough will end their resistance in order to survive but what you don't want is for them to survive so they can fight back tomorrow.  I say take their wealth and send the boys to different corners of the world.  Banish a few to Westeros, send a few to the Iron Isles, maybe the able bodied boys should be sent to the Wall.  That's the way to destroy the culture.  

Well, I meant literally all of them. I doubt that would happen, but as Jaime points out - when you kill all your enemies nobody is left to try to get his vengeance. And when all slavers or slavery-friendly people are dead, slavery is not likely to return.

I expect all Ghiscari to be destroyed completely and only those to survive who join the Shavepate and the other reformed Ghiscari. They might survive. The others will be killed. And Slaver's Bay has to be destroyed and depopulated to prevent a return of the slave trade in the future. Since Valyria conquered Old Ghis the Ghiscari knew no other trade but the slave trade. It would essentially be impossible for the people there to better their ways if remnants of the old culture remained.

I mean, both George (with the slave in ADwD who likes to be a slave) and Tarantino show us how you can internalize slavery. Such a self-perpetuating system cannot really be changed by reform and compromise. We see how Dany fails at that. They are about to persuade her to reintroduce slavery!

4 minutes ago, Victor Newman said:

You might be right about slavery in America.  If the slaves had won their freedom the whites might respect them more in the aftermath.  But the slaves never outnumbered the whites in America.  So it would be impossible for them to win their freedom.  Racism, I don't see much.  Did you all elect a black president ten years ago.  The racism is now against Asians and Hispanics.  

I didn't say it was a particular realistic scenario, but numbers are not necessarily everything in war.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

33 minutes ago, Victor Newman said:

Did you all elect a black president ten years ago.  The racism is now against Asians and Hispanics.  

We did have a black president. I assure you though racism against blacks, Asians, hispanics, native Americans and any other minority is very alive in America. I'm sure some places more than others but it's very, very hard to live in America & not see the racism. Even if you personally don't live in an area where racism is prevalent it's all over the internet every day. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There would be nothing wrong if she became a mass murderer and butchered the slavers and destroyed their entire culture and civilization. There is nothing to salvage there, and those people have been described, rather collectively, as cruel, evil, degenerate, and petty. They are, collectively, worse than the Freys and Boltons (and these guys are already pretty much dehumanized).

In a book that thrives on nuance, this sounds like an easy solution that just invokes more questions. That entire culture and civilization includes freedmen, whom they lived alongside, and are now part of Dany's Meereen. So what do you mean by "culture" and "civilization?" Are the freedmen separate from that now? And there are former masters in Meereen, are they not part of her society that she build? And is Dany going to kill everyone in a tokar again? Mass killing by social markers is like Pol Pot. I guess trials are too much to ask. Whatever happens, it's clear Dany won't be able to rebuild a city or actually rule for a long time. She can only destroy if she embraces dragons. 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Who cares? There were also some 'good Germans', yet I as a descendant of them say my grandparents and great-grandparents deserved to be butchered by the surviving Jews and all the denizens of Europe they helped to attack and slaughter.

You were talking about destroying an entire civilization for some extreme reason. While I'm glad the South lost, I'm also glad that there was enough of the people intact to rebuild and preserve the cultural traditions that aren't harmful. Excessive use of force + genocide would have just destroyed everyone. If the U.S. ended slavery without the entire civilization of the Southern US being eradicated, I don't know why the this can't be the same. And questions of genocide aside, it's just Tywin/Aerys all over again.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not good enough to be an abolitionist - living in a society that permits and perpetuates and thrives on slavery is disgusting by default.

Again, that's extreme. People are born into societies, they don't always have choices on what benefits them, because of social structure. Abolitionists were a diverse group, former slaves included. I dont understand your problem with that term.  

[Hodor the Articulate]

12 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah it's a great (as of yet unfinished) series. It takes place directly after WWII ended & follows a wartime nurse named Claire. She ends up accidentally stepping through a mini stone henge & travelling back in time about 200 years. That's where the real fun begins. If you read it & have a hard time with the first couple chapters - keep reading! The first 2 or 3 chapters are kind of boring but after that it's amazing. I've never read Romance of Three Kingdoms, I'll have to check it out!

It's very bodice-ripper-y though. And the latter books set in the Americas draaaag for me, mostly because of the addition of some very bland characters. But I won't go on about it in this thread.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

My idea - and what I think George is trying to sell us and build up towards in future novels - is that trying to pacify the slavers and trying to compromise with them is going to lead nowhere. It is a dead end because that culture and the people perpetuating it suck, and things are not going to ever look brighter if they are allowed to remain. 

Which means they will have to go all. And that's what's going to happen in the future. And while it might be cruel and bloody it is not going to be, in principle, bad. Because it will be necessary to build a new society and culture, one that's not build on slavery and does not consider slavery a possibility. 

I think we've already been shown in ADWD that comprising with slavers when you're trying to abolish slavery is futile. So yeah, I don't see how else this plot could be wrapped up without the eradication of slaver "culture". Dany's first mistake in Meereen was allowing the ruling class to keep their wealth and status.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

It's very bodice-ripper-y though. And the latter books set in the Americas draaaag for me, mostly because of the addition of some very bland characters. But I won't go on about it in this thread.

I think we've already been shown in ADWD that comprising with slavers when you're trying to abolish slavery is futile. So yeah, I don't see how else this plot could be wrapped up without the eradication of slaver "culture". Dany's first mistake in Meereen was allowing the ruling class to keep their wealth and status.

Parwan, who used to post here, made the point that she should have asset-stripped the ruling class, and transferred their wealth to her supporters.

[Hodor the Articulate]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Parwan, who used to post here, made the point that she should have asset-stripped the ruling class, and transferred their wealth to her supporters. 

Which is similar to what happens in Westeros. The losing side gets stripped of their lands (and titles? I can't remember is that happens too), which get distributed among the victors.

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Because according to GRRM in So Spake Martin, this essayist understood exactly what he was trying to do with Meereen. Its not an interview, but its still the best approximation to what we have on his views for this arc.

I believe Ran said GRRM was referring to characterisation when he said those essays got it right, so what he thought about Feldman's analysis of the theme of slavery is very much up in the air. In fact, we know his interpretation of Meereen as an allegory of Iraq is wrong, as GRRM has twice denied intentionally making any such connection.

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Why did he bother writing this if Dany's choices dont even matter or have consequences? No point showing her success, no point in carefully laying out the storyline in which she had to use her wits, because if it was all an illusion, and nothing she did matters, there was no point to anything. Just the author wanking to himself and waiting for the big fire and blood moment which was coming no matter what Dany did. That's maybe how you read it on the first reading, but after multiple readings, the text supports an illustration of accomplishments, thrown away because she chose dragons. 

Who said Dany's choices don't have consequences? They obviously do. Her failure to fully disempower the Great Masters lead to the Harpy's Sons, and her compromises have allowed the restoration of slavery in some form, as well as the re-establishment of power of the GM through Hizdahr. This isn't a successful path for Dany.

That doesn't mean the overall message of the series is no compromise, blood and fire. But in this particular situation, it applies.

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Which is similar to what happens in Westeros. The losing side gets stripped of their lands (and titles? I can't remember is that happens too), which get distributed among the victors.

I believe Ran said GRRM was referring to characterisation when he said those essays got it right, so what he thought about Feldman's analysis of the theme of slavery is very much up in the air. In fact, we know his interpretation of Meereen as an allegory of Iraq is wrong, as GRRM has twice denied intentionally making any such connection.

Who said Dany's choices don't have consequences? They obviously do. Her failure to fully disempower the Great Masters lead to the Harpy's Sons, and her compromises have allowed the restoration of slavery in some form, as well as the re-establishment of power of the GM through Hizdahr. This isn't a successful path for Dany.

That doesn't mean the overall message of the series is no compromise, blood and fire. But in this particular situation, it applies.

I think that Macchiavelli's dictum works here.  Either Dany should have completely forgiven the native Meereenese elite, and made every effort to win them over.  Or she should have struck them down so hard and far that they could never be a threat again.  She compromises between both positions, and it doesn't really work.

[Sigella]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, the last part was just a little bit of provocation. The point I was trying to make is that it is very important for a culture or society to free themselves of tyranny than being the ones who are freed. Lincoln's paternalism may have ended slavery but it did little to prevent the enshrinement of racial inequality until about a century later - and what I know about American society implies parts are still overwhelmingly and outspokenly racist.

If slavery had ended in the US the way the US themselves freed themselves from the English yoke - or the way the French overthrow the ancien regime - the cultural framework of the society might be considerable different - and in a positive way.

And while Dany shares some parallels with Lincoln there, she is also the catalyst for revolutionary change - in Volantis and the other Free Cities the slaves don't need her to free them, they could just use her as a symbol or icon for change and take matters in their own hands.

But overall it is quite clear that George is not in favor of Dany's desire to have some quiet years, of her trying to compromise with or pacify the slavers. Xaro Xhoan Daxos gives one of the ugliest slave apologies imaginable, and people thinking along those lines fail to understand that this view is, insofar as the author and humanity itself is concerned, dead wrong.

Slavery has to go.

The roach in the rushes here would be that the slavery in slavers bay (or Dothraki for that matter) isn't racially motivated, like the vikings or the antiquity slavery wasn't about race - but rather about culture: they, like the ghiscari, thought that slavery is their culture. The culture will change as soon as people start to think that this is morally wrong and needs to end. Problematic is that slavers bay doesn't really do anything else very well since slavery has been their only income.

American slavery rested on the opinion that african people wasn't as evolved and therefore exempted from human rights, which to me fits better with the slaves in Valyria: if people weren't valyrians they weren't as "close to gods" and therefore not worth as much.

Although the Targs intermarried with westerosi nobility they still went to some lengths to keep house Targaryen as pureblooded as possible, so they'd be a pretty good parallel to modern american racism. People are officially worth alike but unofficially white flight etc.

Maybe Volantis applies to your line of thinking, if they do it on their own they will earn something more than official rights. But I think the Valyrians behind the black wall will resist it unofficially due to not really thinking other people are worth as much so it might even turn out uglier than Mereen.

 

Overall I think the ghiscari are designed not to prepare Dany for the game of thrones but to corrupt her. Even as a peaceful person I can't wait to read when she smashes them into the dirt after enduring their ugly ass resistance for this many chapters.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

We did have a black president. I assure you though racism against blacks, Asians, hispanics, native Americans and any other minority is very alive in America. I'm sure some places more than others but it's very, very hard to live in America & not see the racism. Even if you personally don't live in an area where racism is prevalent it's all over the internet every day. 

My girlfriend was pretty shocked when some elderly African-Americans were apparently surprised when she offered seats to them in a waiting room and a train or bus - if that's representative of the standard behavior in the US, you still have a long way to go. And if I had to guess this certainly reflects the slavery history - the whites just don't think it is necessary to offer common courtesy to their former slaves (who still constitute, in essence, a serving class if you look at the statistics).

[It might be that it is not common in the US to rise and offer seats to elderly people in general. Then I apologize for the anecdote ;-).]

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

In a book that thrives on nuance, this sounds like an easy solution that just invokes more questions. That entire culture and civilization includes freedmen, whom they lived alongside, and are now part of Dany's Meereen. So what do you mean by "culture" and "civilization?" Are the freedmen separate from that now? And there are former masters in Meereen, are they not part of her society that she build? And is Dany going to kill everyone in a tokar again? Mass killing by social markers is like Pol Pot. I guess trials are too much to ask. Whatever happens, it's clear Dany won't be able to rebuild a city or actually rule for a long time. She can only destroy if she embraces dragons. 

We are not talking about the freedmen. I expect the freed slaves and reformed Ghiscari to join Dany and go west with her. My point is that the Ghiscari culture in Slaver's Bay cannot be allowed to continue because it is simply not feasible that slavery can be abolished with the slavers on board. That's what George took a rather long time in ADwD to establish. One hopes that Dany could work with the slavers - instead they unmake everything she accomplished one step at a time.

And this has not only to be done to end slavery in Slaver's Bay but to crush the entire slave trade and ensure that the Free Cities cannot return to slavery, too. One assumes that there is hope for the Free Cities - but the cities of Slaver's Bay (whose only trade is slavery) there is simply no hope.

Innocents are killed in wars and revolutions, just as both have no place for civil justice. That's just a fact. And it is crystal clear that the Ghiscari would never abandon their slaver ways unless they are violently forced.

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

You were talking about destroying an entire civilization for some extreme reason. While I'm glad the South lost, I'm also glad that there was enough of the people intact to rebuild and preserve the cultural traditions that aren't harmful. Excessive use of force + genocide would have just destroyed everyone. If the U.S. ended slavery without the entire civilization of the Southern US being eradicated, I don't know why the this can't be the same. And questions of genocide aside, it's just Tywin/Aerys all over again.

I'd say a society that thrives on the expoitation and abuse of their fellow citizens who are kept in bondage is inherently evil. It is quite clear that this was the case both in the South and - to a much larger degree, of course - in Slaver's Bay. In the latter there is nothing to be salvaged - whether this was also true of the South I don't know. My point was that I think the US would be in a better shape right now if the slaves had freed themselves rather than being freed by their masters - if you have a personal and cultural continuation insofar as power and wealth is concerned (which was the case in the South as well as in Meereen) then you don't really make any real progress (or rather it takes much longer).

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Again, that's extreme. People are born into societies, they don't always have choices on what benefits them, because of social structure. Abolitionists were a diverse group, former slaves included. I dont understand your problem with that term.  

People have the opportunity to migrate, you know. If you lived in the South in the 1850-60s you could have either moved to one of the non-slavery states (or left the Union altogether to a more civilized place where people were not allowed to own slaves) or you could have actually taken up arms to free your fellow humans (alongside the Union soldiers or independently).

If you did neither you were (to various degrees) complicit in the crimes of slavery culture. Just as my German ancestors who only privately said they did not think the Jews should be eradicated or who only privately said that Hitler's war was wrong were not exactly doing enough redeem themselves.

This doesn't mean a person fighting for the abolishment of slavery wasn't better than one who wanted it to continue.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I think we've already been shown in ADWD that comprising with slavers when you're trying to abolish slavery is futile. So yeah, I don't see how else this plot could be wrapped up without the eradication of slaver "culture". Dany's first mistake in Meereen was allowing the ruling class to keep their wealth and status.

Exactly. If Dany were to continue to rule for half a century in Meereen then she could, perhaps, also make a lot of progress using less extreme means (although her compromising approach from ADwD would, of course, get her killed immediately). But that's clearly not the plot of the novels. And I really don't see George just dropping the slavery plot. He started that, he took his time portraying it in ASoS and ADwD, so now he has to finish it. And the only way to get it to a satisfying conclusion (i.e. slavery ending rather than it being restored or continued) is if the slavers and the slavery culture from Qarth to Pentos are destroyed.

And I think it is obvious that the plot is going in that direction. There is a reason why the slavers are described as being as disgusting and degenerate as they are.

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Parwan, who used to post here, made the point that she should have asset-stripped the ruling class, and transferred their wealth to her supporters.

That could have worked in the long-term scenario (which we won't get) I touched upon in the paragraph above. Unless it can be ensured that the former elite cannot regain their position this is a rather risky endeavor.

28 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Which is similar to what happens in Westeros. The losing side gets stripped of their lands (and titles? I can't remember is that happens too), which get distributed among the victors.

Attainders do happen, but houses are rarely destroyed entirely or completely stripped of their wealth and lands. Usually you lose some lands and some titles if you rebelled or participated in a rebellion, not everything.

And feudalism as such remains - something that should be abolished, too, but that injustice is likely not going to be touched in ASoIaF.

28 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I believe Ran said GRRM was referring to characterisation when he said those essays got it right, so what he thought about Feldman's analysis of the theme of slavery is very much up in the air. In fact, we know his interpretation of Meereen as an allegory of Iraq is wrong, as GRRM has twice denied intentionally making any such connection.

The gist is that the guy got some things about Dany's arc and what George tried to accomplish with it in ADwD right. Not necessarily any of the particulars.

28 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

That doesn't mean the overall message of the series is no compromise, blood and fire. But in this particular situation, it applies.

Yeah, and it is certainly possible that the eradication of slavery culture in Essos is going to cause Dany to be less forgiving to the Westerosi when she arrives there - because the lesson she learns is that harshness and cruelty do work, whereas being the nice girl is likely to get her killed. That certainly could cause complications, although I don't think she is going to want to be cruel to the Westeros when she arrives there. She really has to get a lot of shit from her enemies there (whoever they may turn out to be) to take the eradication approach to Westeros - if she ever does that.

17 minutes ago, Sigella said:

The roach in the rushes here would be that the slavery in slavers bay (or Dothraki for that matter) isn't racially motivated, like the vikings or the antiquity slavery wasn't about race - but rather about culture: they, like the ghiscari, thought that slavery is their culture. The culture will change as soon as people start to think that this is morally wrong and needs to end. Problematic is that slavers bay doesn't really do anything else very well since slavery has been their only income.

Actually, slavery was never about race in our society, either. Slavery continued from Antiquity to modern times and the justification for it changed over time. You usually did not enslave your own peers/neighbors, and the larger your in-group (later extended to 'all Christians, Muslims, etc.') caused them to import slaves from farther and farther away. And once the Atlantic slave trade was established the way to justify that was to dehumanize the 'slave race' - but that is actually a very old argument you can already find in Aristotle's writings (for him nature's slaves - lackwits, disabled people - establish a natural hierarchy which humans rightfully reproduce - slaves are supposed to be slaves and should not complain, period).

In Martinworld we don't have a slavery culture which is based on racism (although racism and xenophobia are very much a thing) but, as you point out, Ghiscari culture is completely based on slavery. And nothing is going to change that unless somebody forces them to abandon it. Slavery has been their only trade for thousands of years.

17 minutes ago, Sigella said:

American slavery rested on the opinion that african people wasn't as evolved and therefore exempted from human rights, which to me fits better with the slaves in Valyria: if people weren't valyrians they weren't as "close to gods" and therefore not worth as much.

We don't know enough about Valyria to answer that question. The fact that Valyria was apparently a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society makes it more likely slavery was there more like Roman slavery - you certainly enslaved as many barbarians as possible, but you also did business with those barbarians who had money. And you definitely did not enslave people because they looked different. You also enslaved your own people if they were indebted to you, etc.

17 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Although the Targs intermarried with westerosi nobility they still went to some lengths to keep house Targaryen as pureblooded as possible, so they'd be a pretty good parallel to modern american racism. People are officially worth alike but unofficially white flight etc.

That is more about aristocratic and royal elitism. But, sure, one of the rarely discussed roots of racism is actually the construct of special noble or royal blood evident in all aristocratic and monarchistic societies.

The Targaryens are only different in degree there. It doesn't really matter whether you only marry your sisters or merely your own noble peers who are, for the most part, your cousins to various degrees (which is what the rest of the nobility of Westeros do).

17 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Maybe Volantis applies to your line of thinking, if they do it on their own they will earn something more than official rights. But I think the Valyrians behind the black wall will resist it unofficially due to not really thinking other people are worth as much so it might even turn out uglier than Mereen.

Considering it is five slaves on one free Volantene and the entire Volantene military are slaves it is quite clear how this will turn out. The slaves will rise up and put down all members of the Old Blood besides those few they might overlook/be able to flee.

I mean, it is pretty clear that the Widow of the Waterfront is going to become a future triarch, possibly the only triarch. And she is not going to be a merciful mistress...

17 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Overall I think the ghiscari are designed not to prepare Dany for the game of thrones but to corrupt her. Even as a peaceful person I can't wait to read when she smashes them into the dirt after enduring their ugly ass resistance for this many chapters.

I really don't see the corruption there. It is like saying the Freys and Boltons are there to corrupt the Starks because they desire vengeance.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

I really don't see the corruption there. It is like saying the Freys and Boltons are there to corrupt the Starks because they desire vengeance.

Perhaps "hardened" would be the better term than "corrupted".

I hate to mention the Show, but there's probably an echo of it in Tyrion's speech about "evil men."  You can start out by massacring people who are unequivocally arseholes, before coming to see any opponents as arseholes who need to be massacred.  Admittedly, Tyrion was retconning Dany's morally justifiable actions in East as evil.  Whether that was just typically lazy writing, or Tyrion being a deliberate liar in order to save his own hide, is an open question.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Perhaps "hardened" would be the better term than "corrupted".

I hate to mention the Show, but there's probably an echo of it in Tyrion's speech about "evil men."  You can start out by massacring people who are unequivocally arseholes, before coming to see any opponents as arseholes who need to be massacred.  Admittedly, Tyrion was retconning Dany's morally justifiable actions in East as evil.  Whether that was just typically lazy writing, or Tyrion being a deliberate liar in order to save his own hide, is an open question.

I don't buy that because that's clearly show nonsense insofar as complexity and retconning is concerned.

In fact, it seems rather likely Dany is not going to be involved in the wrap-up of the Meereen plot. If she goes to Vaes Dothrak Tyrion, Selmy, Victarion, etc. will deal with the Meereenese, not she.

While Selmy couldn't get to the bottom of the Meereenese plot, Tyrion will. And his way to deal with that won't be nice. He will realize that they have to use brutal force to deal with that - or risk to lose everything Dany has tried to accomplish. The Green Grace does know that Dany isn't necessarily dead, so she and the Sons of the Harpy have to use the window of opportunity her absence has created. Even more so if she is dead - then they have to move now to prevent to lose their advantage to the other factions.

The idea that there is going to be some sort of peaceful consensus government in Meereen/Slaver's Bay Dany is going to destroy once she shows up with her Dothraki is not very likely. Especially since Dany doesn't really understand how grievous the betrayal of Hizdahr and the others was. She has some mild suspicions, but that's not enough for a particular cruel reaction.

One can imagine that her taking over the Dothraki is going to harden her even more, but a realistic approach to Slaver's Bay on the basis of her current knowledge would be to offer them to accompany to go to Westeros (which she now with the Dothraki can do) or stay behind - not to go with her or die. The latter option is only going to come if she learns how she was betrayed. And that she is only going to learn from the people uncovering the plot - who then might already be the ones dealing with them.

After all, there are two more dragons, and Daenerys Targaryen isn't going to be the only dragonrider. If Tyrion, Victarion, Brown Ben Plumm, or some other person claims Viserion and/or Rhaegal then they could - especially while Dany is presumed dead - exert as much authority over Dany's gang in Slaver's Bay as would if she were there. And these people might turn out to be very harsh (especially if you imagine Victarion 'Liberator of Slaves' Greyjoy as a dragonrider - but Tyrion wouldn't necessarily be less determined or harsh).

[Hugorfonics]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

From what little I know about American history (I'm German) the reconstruction was all about reintegrating the South back into the Union. Is that more or less correct?

Lol thats one way of saying it. The south passed a bunch of laws disbarring blacks from voting, Washington sent in her troops. 

The term reconstruction is a strange one, it sounds more like the post ww2s Marshall plan which involved good will and large amounts of money, as opposed to the reconstruction era which was basically just boots on the ground.

Though I supp.Soe America was being reconstructed, only after the war was slavery eradicated along with the remaining hostile native tribes and the railroad from Atlantic to Pacific completed. The America in the 1850s and 1880s were vastly different.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, my idea was something like a real revolution - the French of American Revolution. If people take the power that should be theirs anyway rather than being granted it or given by some paternalistic ruler then things are different. The narrative of American or French democratic tradition is so strong because they took their liberties and freedoms, getting rid of the previous system. That is much different from the various constitutional monarchies of Europe or those who only were given democracy by grace of the club of the victors (as the case here in Germany).

So Ive always understood liberty and free elections as a necessity, viva la resistance baby, but like you said, the narrative is different in America. Though the ones who kicked George III to the curb were not my ancestors, nor the ones who defeated the Confedracy nor the Axis. Im 1st generation, the son of two immigrants, and my blood pumps liberty. This isnt some type of ancestry worship, its common logic. (And im surprised I always thought that most Europeans, specifically German, embraced democracy)

Also, although the African Americans didnt go full Nat Turner, they have made significant strides through hard work, and diligence using the powers of their democracy. (Women as well took to the streets to get the right to vote) from that reconstruction era to the 60s the south continued to make some wild laws, well America really as some of these laws were federal, then the civil rights movement took hold. 

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There would be nothing wrong if she became a mass murderer and butchered the slavers and destroyed their entire culture and civilization. There is nothing to salvage there, and those people have been described, rather collectively, as cruel, evil, degenerate, and petty. They are, collectively, worse than the Freys and Boltons (and these guys are already pretty much dehumanized).

Nobody in-universe (and very few readers) are going to miss the unreformed Meereenese or the Yunkai'i.

Rehabilitation is a thing, the bad can become good. These Ghiscari are evil, but evil can be defeated. When a slaver is holding a whip the only correct measure is to strike off his hand, but when he no longer holds a whip how can you tell hes a master? 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Lol thats one way of saying it. The south passed a bunch of laws disbarring blacks from voting, Washington sent in her troops.

Yeah, that is my picture, too. I interpret 'reconstruction' as 'reintegrating the South into the Union'. Didn't the US also have a couple of Southern presidents shortly after the Civil War?

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

So Ive always understood liberty and free elections as a necessity, viva la resistance baby, but like you said, the narrative is different in America. Though the ones who kicked George III to the curb were not my ancestors, nor the ones who defeated the Confedracy nor the Axis. Im 1st generation, the son of two immigrants, and my blood pumps liberty. This isnt some type of ancestry worship, its common logic. (And im surprised I always thought that most Europeans, specifically German, embraced democracy).

Well, it is how a nation and the citizen and the culture see themselves - how the general narrative is framed and the self-image is constructed. Successful rebellions and revolutions are part of American and French national identity - this doesn't mean those were good revolutions or as successful as they should have been. But it is a difference if you have such things in your history compared to groups who don't have them.

Germany never saw a successful revolution. We were an authoritarian state until the end of World War I - and the parliamentary democracy afterwards was pretty much doomed because bureaucratic, cultural, political, and, especially, the military elites remained the same.

1945 pretty much no German wanted to return to democracy - that was forced on us by the Allies.

Today the system is much more stable, but the way it is set up still has authoritarian roots, with crucial aspects of society going back to Bismarck. Especially officials and bureaucrats see themselves as part of a ruling class or the representatives thereof rather than as civil servants.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Rehabilitation is a thing, the bad can become good. These Ghiscari are evil, but evil can be defeated. When a slaver is holding a whip the only correct measure is to strike off his hand, but when he no longer holds a whip how can you tell hes a master? 

But we can say that George doesn't really give us sympathetic Ghiscari, does he? None of them (those who joined her, like the Shavepate aside) give any indication they are willing to change - and without her nobody would have wanted to abolish slavery, anyway.

And as I said, a milder approach would be feasible if Dany were to continue to rule Slaver's Bay for the next five decades or so. Then change could have been made in a different fashion, but as things stand in the books we are going to get a radical solution to the slavery problem.