The Astapori situation

[SeanF]

50 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Goodbrooks still exist, the son of the Lord that Hoster killed is part of Renly's wedding party, another member of the House is married to a Frey. Hoster just destroyed one Goodbrook village (perhaps their base, perhaps not).

 

I do disagree with the term of 'guilty' in this case. These people are not under the impression what they are doing is wrong and they were not actually given a choice to change their stance on how their society treated people. Dany just had them killed and installed on the local populace that murdering the people in control was the only way to take control.

The Wise Masters had returned to slaving as soon as she moved on, and were busy raising levies, hiring sellswords, and making alliances against her.

Cleon the self-styled Great was no better, however. The Butcher King had restored slavery to Astapor, the only change being that the former slaves were now the masters and the former masters were now the slaves.

 

To frame what happened in Astapor as heroic or good is bizarre to me. Dany fucked the entire city over and instead of being the power that implemented long term change, give her atrocities meaning, she just quickly moved on. She's young, this is a lesson to her in leadership, with the people of this city collateral damage.

If the Good Masters did think slavery was a benign institution, they would not inflict such cruelties on the slaves to keep them down.

They've had ample time to change their ways.

[Bernie Mac]

31 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If the Good Masters did think slavery was a benign institution, they would not inflict such cruelties on the slaves to keep them down.

The Grand Masters are not immortal, each generation comes into the same society of ignorance, being taught the same things. The society is wrong, the people who live in it are just largely ignorant of it.

31 minutes ago, SeanF said:

They've had ample time to change their ways.

Sure. But Dany's solution has not changed the ways, slavery still exists in Astapor, only it is now much more bloody.

 

 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Grand Masters are not immortal, each generation comes into the same society of ignorance, being taught the same things. The society is wrong, the people who live in it are just largely ignorant of it.

Sure. But Dany's solution has not changed the ways, slavery still exists in Astapor, only it is now much more bloody.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Grand Masters are not immortal, each generation comes into the same society of ignorance, being taught the same things. The society is wrong, the people who live in it are just largely ignorant of it.

Sure. But Dany's solution has not changed the ways, slavery still exists in Astapor, only it is now much more bloody.

 

 

TBH my sympathies rest more with the Good Masters' victims.  This is a place like 18th century Haiti - hell on earth for 85% of the population.  Few people would say the Haitians should have stayed their hands, until their masters reformed.

The Good Masters are all well-educated people.  They can discern right from wrong.  In fact, Master Kraznys positively relishes telling Daenerys about all the horrors that take place in Astapor, and observing her reaction.

The servile war in Slavers Bay has lasted about two years.  It remains to be seen who will win it.  That said, it was not just the Unsullied she liberated at Astapor, but the trainees, and about 40,000 freedmen who left with her.

[sweetsunray]

5 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

I believe her instructions were a means of ensuring that those who were clearly children would be spared. She did not say to kill everyone over the age of twelve; she specified who should be slain, and additionally specifically instructed that the Unsullied not harm anyone under that age. These are very different things. 

Yeah I know... I did read the OP, and did not contest that.

Quote

 

At that point in time, Daenerys had no way of knowing for certain what the age of majority is in the Ghiscari culture of Astapor specifically, to what extent children engage in commanding slaves and family affairs associated with this, the level of direct involvement in perpetuating slavery as one grows older, and so forth. Also consider that, had she stipulated that those younger than sixteen be spared, there would be a lot more confusion in how to interpret her orders, many otherwise clearly culpable slavers could be spared if they were passably young enough, and violent revenge and/or insurrection would be that much likelier if a large amount of (near-)adult males were left alive.

Besides, it must be remembered that as intelligent as Dany is, she is just a teenage girl exercising newfound agency with no real support or safety net. This was a very stressful and precarious situation for which she did not really have time to prepare, and providing clear orders with stipulations would be both difficult in the moment and potentially destructive to her goals and her own person. She is certainly smart enough to realize this; regardless of whatever extent emotion might have influenced her decision of age, it is clear she approached this as strategically as she could, and acted to spare as many innocents as she could, given that this occurred in the first place.

 

None of the above makes me change my mind that I would have preferred it if the cut-off age that Dany chose would have been higher. The defence that "she's just a teenage girl with no real support or safety net. Yadayayada.... " is crap. She has dragons, Jorah and Selmy and she planned it (it wasn't a snap decision) and discussed it. Dany obviously contemplated at what age she should spare children who fit her other instructions. Dany gets a C for effort by choosing the age of 12. It's the minimum, but not something to rave about either. There's a gap of 4 years between 12 and the age of being recognized as an adult (if they're male) in any of the cultures that Dany is acquainted with. And those 4 years make a huge difference in life experience and ability to become a sceptic. I do concede to your point that 16 is problematic, but not because of "looks". If the Unsullied know who to kill with precision as the OP pointed out, then they'd be able to distinguish a 17 year old from a 15 year old. 16 is problematic, because it is quite a late age to understand that slavery is wrong. I actually mentioned 16 in the hope someone at least had the sense to propose a compromise age of 14.

Why do those 2 years matter so much? Life experience. Imo Dany chose the cut-off age of 12 based on her own age when Dany changed her mind on slavery and ordered Dothraki to stop it, but it wasn't so much age that determined it. It was the experience of being a) complicit b) the realization that it was done for her benefit c) that Dothraki riders weren't brave, but cowards (most of Ogo's riders had run off). An 11-/12 year old would at worst have been a witness to atrocities, but would have been unlikely put into a morally compromising position. She spares the "untested".

George himself has most of his growth-arc POV characters (with the exception of Bran and Arya) go through their first "tests" around the age of 13-14. Those are the ages when children are given more responsibility and thus find themselves in moral compromising situations where they are bound to feel more responsible of the outcome, and thus through experience discover their limit, where they draw the line. And in several cases, these characters only discover the drawn line by first making the wrong decision. Hence, had Dany actually chosen 14 as the cut-off age to spare a child, she'd have gotten an A on that decision.

She still gets an F from me for leaving Astapor entirely defenseless.

,

 

I

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

On 1/31/2020 at 5:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

No, Gregor and Lorch definitely got a mission of their own.

Oh, definitely. I know I said his one order, but I meant his one priority. My bad. Gregor and Lorch obviously weren't acting independently.

On 1/31/2020 at 5:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, and that's basically the only/main point of this thread.

Sure, and I don't disagree. There's more here to talk about though, no?

On 1/31/2020 at 5:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

Whatever you do there - once your business is prosperous enough so you can afford one slave you likely buy one. And when things go bad then you just sell him or her.

Yeah, fair enough. Many reasons one might not need or want or be able to have a slave, though. Housing them, foremost among issues. If you have no space, you can't have a slave. Still, I guess the question is what comes first, slave owning money or tokar wearing money. If it's the former, the vast majority of tokar wearers own slaves. If it's the latter, a slightly smaller majority of tokar wearers own slaves.

My point is simply that we don't know that one must own slaves in order to wear a tokar, and so it's possible that the order to kill any man wearing a tokar could kill some who own no slaves. Even if it did, though, collateral damage is always to be expected during a sack. One can't take issue with the collateral damage if one believes the sack was worthwhile.

On 1/31/2020 at 5:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

Since she doesn't know much about Ghiscari culture even at the end of ADwD we cannot be sure how accurate her assessment there is. But it certainly might be the case that children also wear (a version) of the tokar.

Mmm, it's impossible to say, really. Whether he's of age or not, Daenerys might well consider him a boy, and we don't truly know whether children wear the tokar. Time might tell.

On 1/31/2020 at 5:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, my point here was essentially that I'd think that the Unsullied certainly must have seen what Dany had done there - that she had betrayed the Good Masters, the people who had made them all into Unsullied. If I were a person who cared about fairness and contracts and all that I'd not watch this betrayal and say 'Well, technically the deal was upheld and only after the transaction was concluded one party betrayed the other.' I'd see this charade as the betrayal that it was - but it seems to me that the Unsullied didn't view it as that.

Well, I am a person who cares about fairness and contracts and all that, and I honestly think what she did was disgusting. However, I also believe the deal was struck and finished. It's just that she had no intention of leaving it at that.

It's not good business to go stealing your payment back, of course, but the theft is the payment, not what you paid for. Anyone who knows Daenerys did this and gets into business with her is a fool, however. I wouldn't trust her for a moment.

On 1/31/2020 at 5:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

We later learn that they were not exactly happy with what they were and that they are fiercely loyal to Dany not just because they are Unsullied but because of what she did for them.

Maybe. Or maybe they act as if they want their freedom because it clearly pleases Daenerys, their master. It's hard to say. The obedience is deep, and - I believe to a man - they chose to serve as her army. The exact thing they'd be doing if they had no choice at all.

It's worth considering, is all. They'd be fiercely loyal to whomever bought them, no matter what kind of person they are.

On 1/31/2020 at 5:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

but I think the better way to interpret this entire slave uprising thing (which later also get with the Mhysa moment at Yunkai) is that the slaves of all the Ghiscari cities long for freedom. The overwhelming majority of them is not happy with slavery.

Sure, the "normal" slaves are all (well, mostly all) unhappy. The Unsullied are... different. Now admittedly, it was part of a sales pitch, but Kraznyz says that the Unsullied would kill those who try to tempt them with freedom, and that "an Unsullied would not take it if the little mare offered it as a gift". The Unsullied have had their reputation for centuries. I wouldn't think embellishment would be necessary. It might well be true.

What else do they have, besides obedience? What else do they know? Considering they all pledged themselves to Daenerys, it's fair enough to say that they didn't take the freedom that she offered them.

8 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

You neglected to include the sentence directly following the passage you quoted.

 The tokar was a master's garment, a sign of wealth and power.

I sure did. It had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about what it undeniably shows. What is certain. Not Daenerys's view on the matter. The fact that one cannot move freely, and that it requires the full use of one hand is undeniable. Completely beyond doubt. The fact that it is only worn by slave owners is not undeniable. It may well be the case, but Daenerys believing it does not make it so.

8 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

I think it's as clear as can be without Mr. Martin adding an awkward, "The tokar, traditional garment of slavers." or something equally clunky.

What is clear is that it is a sign of wealth. The slavers are all, obviously, wealthy. Therefore, all slavers will wear tokars, as it is the one garment that the wealthy wear. What is not clear is the amount of wealth one must have to be allowed to wear a tokar. The well-to-do, but not extraordinarily wealthy might be able to wear the tokar (there are plain fringed tokars, for example, which might be worn by such). We also don't know that if one were going to wear a tokar but happened to have no slaves (whether they all died, or they never owned any for some reason), whether or not they would be allowed to do so.

Is slave ownership a prerequisite for wearing a tokar? We don't know, but it seems unlikely. We know they're restricted (in Astapor, at least) to only the freeborn, but it seems likely enough that they're limited to the wealthy because they're prohibitively expensive for those without such means. Certainly, it's likely that in the majority of cases, such wealth coincides with slave ownership, but I wouldn't think it a necessity. As such, there could be those who own no slaves yet wear a tokar.

It doesn't matter overmuch, regardless. I agree with Lord Varys that Daenerys went far enough to avoid a wholesale massacre, and even if her orders did cause the death of non-slave-owning-tokar-wearers, I believe that collateral damage is unavoidable in a sack anyway. I mostly agree with what is being said. Just some minor quibbles.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Oh, definitely. I know I said his one order, but I meant his one priority. My bad. Gregor and Lorch obviously weren't acting independently.

Sure, and I don't disagree. There's more here to talk about though, no?

Yeah, fair enough. Many reasons one might not need or want or be able to have a slave, though. Housing them, foremost among issues. If you have no space, you can't have a slave. Still, I guess the question is what comes first, slave owning money or tokar wearing money. If it's the former, the vast majority of tokar wearers own slaves. If it's the latter, a slightly smaller majority of tokar wearers own slaves.

My point is simply that we don't know that one must own slaves in order to wear a tokar, and so it's possible that the order to kill any man wearing a tokar could kill some who own no slaves. Even if it did, though, collateral damage is always to be expected during a sack. One can't take issue with the collateral damage if one believes the sack was worthwhile.

Mmm, it's impossible to say, really. Whether he's of age or not, Daenerys might well consider him a boy, and we don't truly know whether children wear the tokar. Time might tell.

Well, I am a person who cares about fairness and contracts and all that, and I honestly think what she did was disgusting. However, I also believe the deal was struck and finished. It's just that she had no intention of leaving it at that.

It's not good business to go stealing your payment back, of course, but the theft is the payment, not what you paid for. Anyone who knows Daenerys did this and gets into business with her is a fool, however. I wouldn't trust her for a moment.

Maybe. Or maybe they act as if they want their freedom because it clearly pleases Daenerys, their master. It's hard to say. The obedience is deep, and - I believe to a man - they chose to serve as her army. The exact thing they'd be doing if they had no choice at all.

It's worth considering, is all. They'd be fiercely loyal to whomever bought them, no matter what kind of person they are.

Sure, the "normal" slaves are all (well, mostly all) unhappy. The Unsullied are... different. Now admittedly, it was part of a sales pitch, but Kraznyz says that the Unsullied would kill those who try to tempt them with freedom, and that "an Unsullied would not take it if the little mare offered it as a gift". The Unsullied have had their reputation for centuries. I wouldn't think embellishment would be necessary. It might well be true.

What else do they have, besides obedience? What else do they know? Considering they all pledged themselves to Daenerys, it's fair enough to say that they didn't take the freedom that she offered them.

I sure did. It had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about what it undeniably shows. What is certain. Not Daenerys's view on the matter. The fact that one cannot move freely, and that it requires the full use of one hand is undeniable. Completely beyond doubt. The fact that it is only worn by slave owners is not undeniable. It may well be the case, but Daenerys believing it does not make it so.

What is clear is that it is a sign of wealth. The slavers are all, obviously, wealthy. Therefore, all slavers will wear tokars, as it is the one garment that the wealthy wear. What is not clear is the amount of wealth one must have to be allowed to wear a tokar. The well-to-do, but not extraordinarily wealthy might be able to wear the tokar (there are plain fringed tokars, for example, which might be worn by such). We also don't know that if one were going to wear a tokar but happened to have no slaves (whether they all died, or they never owned any for some reason), whether or not they would be allowed to do so.

Is slave ownership a prerequisite for wearing a tokar? We don't know, but it seems unlikely. We know they're restricted (in Astapor, at least) to only the freeborn, but it seems likely enough that they're limited to the wealthy because they're prohibitively expensive for those without such means. Certainly, it's likely that in the majority of cases, such wealth coincides with slave ownership, but I wouldn't think it a necessity. As such, there could be those who own no slaves yet wear a tokar.

It doesn't matter overmuch, regardless. I agree with Lord Varys that Daenerys went far enough to avoid a wholesale massacre, and even if her orders did cause the death of non-slave-owning-tokar-wearers, I believe that collateral damage is unavoidable in a sack anyway. I mostly agree with what is being said. Just some minor quibbles.

You can't contract to sell what you don't own.  The Good Masters did not own the bodies of the Unsullied.  They were selling stolen property.  Breaking the contract was entirely the right thing to do.  Freeing the Unsullied was restoring stolen property to its owner.

[Lord Varys]

17 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I have little to no issue with the people she killed.

I think she should have commanded anyone of 16 and younger should be spared, as that is the cut off age of becoming an adult in their world. But I get where she got the age of 12: that's her own age at the Lhazareen village when she first started to realize that selling people into slavery was morally wrong.

That is pretty much irrelevant since she never said youths from 12-16 should be killed. Men in tokars, soldiers, and people holding whips were to be specifically killed.

We can assume the Unsullied didn't harm 14-year-olds who surrendered - whereas we can expect them to kill 10-12-year-olds who pretended to yield and then attacked stabbed them with hidden daggers.

In Westeros ten-year-olds and younger do serve as squires and are thus combatants in battle.

14 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I do disagree with the term of 'guilty' in this case. These people are not under the impression what they are doing is wrong and they were not actually given a choice to change their stance on how their society treated people. Dany just had them killed and installed on the local populace that murdering the people in control was the only way to take control.

The Wise Masters had returned to slaving as soon as she moved on, and were busy raising levies, hiring sellswords, and making alliances against her.

Cleon the self-styled Great was no better, however. The Butcher King had restored slavery to Astapor, the only change being that the former slaves were now the masters and the former masters were now the slaves.

 

To frame what happened in Astapor as heroic or good is bizarre to me. Dany fucked the entire city over and instead of being the power that implemented long term change, give her atrocities meaning, she just quickly moved on. She's young, this is a lesson to her in leadership, with the people of this city collateral damage.

They knew that this was wrong, they just ignored that. Astapor is basically a concentration camp. Nobody has to explain that to the Astapori - they designed and maintain the their society the way it is.

 

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The Grand Masters are not immortal, each generation comes into the same society of ignorance, being taught the same things. The society is wrong, the people who live in it are just largely ignorant of it.

This makes little sense - people are not shaped in this way by their culture. People do know and understand what it means if you torture and maim and kill another person. Ghiscari slavery isn't even based on racist nonsense - the Astapori enslave everybody who is sold to them, they cannot tell their children that they are a better race and they are only enslaving sub-humans (like the Americans did). All men are suited to become Unsullied.

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure. But Dany's solution has not changed the ways, slavery still exists in Astapor, only it is now much more bloody.

It is not more bloody. Cleon and his people struck back at the slavers - which is understandable. There is nothing wrong with enslaving the slavers and butchering them. What made things bad in Astapor is that the others cities allied against them and that Dany abandoned them.

10 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

She still gets an F from me for leaving Astapor entirely defenseless.

That is pretty much irrelevant, too. Her mistake was to not deal with the Yunkai'i and the Meereenese the way she dealt with the Good Masters. Had she killed them all Yunkai would have never led a coalition against her nor would she have been in any risk of losing Meereen had she marched to the aid of the Astapori. And then the other cities would have not exactly been that encouraged to challenge her as quickly as they did. You do not quickly declare war on a party who might not show you any mercy if you lose.

Considering that Dany's own forces - all her Unsullied - are clearly not strong enough to stand against an alliance of the slaver cities her leaving a garrison of Unsullied back at Astapor would have changed nothing.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Yeah, fair enough. Many reasons one might not need or want or be able to have a slave, though. Housing them, foremost among issues. If you have no space, you can't have a slave. Still, I guess the question is what comes first, slave owning money or tokar wearing money. If it's the former, the vast majority of tokar wearers own slaves. If it's the latter, a slightly smaller majority of tokar wearers own slaves.

We can be reasonably certain that tokar-wearers only make up the upper class slavers - assuming there are some middle class people around in those societies. The tokar is a symbol of power and wealth. And wealth and power means you are a slaver in one of those Ghiscari cities.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

My point is simply that we don't know that one must own slaves in order to wear a tokar, and so it's possible that the order to kill any man wearing a tokar could kill some who own no slaves. Even if it did, though, collateral damage is always to be expected during a sack. One can't take issue with the collateral damage if one believes the sack was worthwhile.

Regardless whether you happened to own slaves or not at the point you were killed by Daenerys' people (the Good Masters lost all their Unsullied in that deal, meaning they had less slaves than a minute before) you would still be part of the ruling elite of Astapor if you wore a tokar. And any person being involved in some capacity in the organizing and running of that city and its business is both a profiteer of slavery as well as complicit in the crimes committed to create Unsullied.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Mmm, it's impossible to say, really. Whether he's of age or not, Daenerys might well consider him a boy, and we don't truly know whether children wear the tokar. Time might tell.

I'd be surprised if we got more details on that stuff.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Well, I am a person who cares about fairness and contracts and all that, and I honestly think what she did was disgusting. However, I also believe the deal was struck and finished. It's just that she had no intention of leaving it at that.

There were people who deserve fairness ... and then there is scum that can be put down. The slavers belong to the latter category ... just as the Freys and Boltons do in Westeros.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

It's not good business to go stealing your payment back, of course, but the theft is the payment, not what you paid for. Anyone who knows Daenerys did this and gets into business with her is a fool, however. I wouldn't trust her for a moment.

Why not? Are you some kind of slaver creating Unsullied?

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Maybe. Or maybe they act as if they want their freedom because it clearly pleases Daenerys, their master. It's hard to say. The obedience is deep, and - I believe to a man - they chose to serve as her army. The exact thing they'd be doing if they had no choice at all.

It is pretty clear that Greyworm is later a person, as is Stalwart Shield and some of the other Unsullied we meet and hear about later. Grey Worm even kept the slave name of the day to memorize the day Dany liberated him. This isn't something he would do out of obedience. Eventually the effects of the wine of courage - enabling them to withstand pain better because they were feeling less - might wear off, but that drug didn't turn them into robots.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Sure, the "normal" slaves are all (well, mostly all) unhappy. The Unsullied are... different. Now admittedly, it was part of a sales pitch, but Kraznyz says that the Unsullied would kill those who try to tempt them with freedom, and that "an Unsullied would not take it if the little mare offered it as a gift". The Unsullied have had their reputation for centuries. I wouldn't think embellishment would be necessary. It might well be true.

It apparently isn't, or else things would have gone a little differently. They may have then refused to be freed by Daenerys, for instance. Or they may have stood with the their Good Masters because Dany was trying to free them when they commanded them to attack the slavers.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

What else do they have, besides obedience? What else do they know? Considering they all pledged themselves to Daenerys, it's fair enough to say that they didn't take the freedom that she offered them.

But they have. We know they did.

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

What is clear is that it is a sign of wealth. The slavers are all, obviously, wealthy. Therefore, all slavers will wear tokars, as it is the one garment that the wealthy wear. What is not clear is the amount of wealth one must have to be allowed to wear a tokar. The well-to-do, but not extraordinarily wealthy might be able to wear the tokar (there are plain fringed tokars, for example, which might be worn by such). We also don't know that if one were going to wear a tokar but happened to have no slaves (whether they all died, or they never owned any for some reason), whether or not they would be allowed to do so.

Again, there is no difference there. Any wealthy person choosing to live in Astapor but not owning slaves isn't different from any of the Good Masters who owned slaves.

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

You can't contract to sell what you don't own.  The Good Masters did not own the bodies of the Unsullied.  They were selling stolen property.  Breaking the contract was entirely the right thing to do.  Freeing the Unsullied was restoring stolen property to its owner.

I'd not bring property into any of that - people aren't property, so they cannot being sold. Period. Any deal involving people as property is null and void from the start.

And it is pretty clear that stuff like that is Dany's belief to - sentences like 'A dragon is no slave' very much hammer that home.

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This makes little sense - people are not shaped in this way by their culture. People do know and understand what it means if you torture

I'd not bring property into any of that - people aren't property, so they cannot being sold. Period. Any deal involving people as property is null and void from the start.

And it is pretty clear that stuff like that is Dany's belief to - sentences like 'A dragon is no slave' very much hammer that home.

Agreed.

But I have encountered the argument that Daenerys "stole private property" when she double-crossed the Good Masters.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Agreed.

But I have encountered the argument that Daenerys "stole private property" when she double-crossed the Good Masters.

Sure, that's one of those cases where you see where people's true colors are in the slavery issue. Or that they have more issues with broken contracts and 'theft' or with the suffering of people.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, that's one of those cases where you see where people's true colors are in the slavery issue. Or that they have more issues with broken contracts and 'theft' or with the suffering of people.

Quora is the worst forum.  You encounter arguments there that people have not made for at least 150 years.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

11 hours ago, SeanF said:

You can't contract to sell what you don't own.  The Good Masters did not own the bodies of the Unsullied.  They were selling stolen property.  Breaking the contract was entirely the right thing to do.  Freeing the Unsullied was restoring stolen property to its owner.

Nobody did. By all the laws of their land and the laws of their gods, they can own people. However much you or I might disapprove, they were within their rights to do so.

What Daenerys did was bad business, regardless of her morality or the immorality of the slavers. In addition to her belief that people cannot be owned, what if she also thought animals cannot be owned? Or that plants can't be owned? That the land can't be owned? Or maybe that it's immoral to rent out whores (we're talking free people here, not slaves)? Does that mean she has free rein to kill livestock sellers, farmers, everyone who owns a house or business, or brothel keepers? Maybe so long as she makes a deal she has no intention of upholding with them first? Of course not. The only difference is that you and I agree with her on the fact that people should not be traded.

Moral belief is no reason to break contracts. It was not the right thing to do. Freeing slaves is a noble goal, sure, and this was done in service of that, but it was a bad act in service to a greater good, not a good act in itself.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We can be reasonably certain that tokar-wearers only make up the upper class slavers - assuming there are some middle class people around in those societies.

I'm not certain we can. We know there are tokars with a plain fringe. We don't know what this truly implies, though. We don't know the level of power to which one must ascend to be worthy of a fringed tokar. Or, indeed, a tokar at all. Though we do know that there is a difference, it isn't just style. We just don't know enough.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 you would still be part of the ruling elite of Astapor if you wore a tokar.

I doubt that everyone who wears a tokar has influence over the running of the city. Some of them simply wouldn't want to, and as the elite, wouldn't have to. Running their own house, sure, but not the city entire. It seems unlikely.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd be surprised if we got more details on that stuff.

Yeah, me too. It's a shame, it's interesting enough.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There were people who deserve fairness ... and then there is scum that can be put down. The slavers belong to the latter category ... just as the Freys and Boltons do in Westeros.

Ah. They deserve it. Sure. Don't get me wrong, I agree that they're scum. However, if one does not wish to deal with scum, one shouldn't deal with scum. No need for breaking deals. If a deal is to be made, however, a deal should be kept.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why not? Are you some kind of slaver creating Unsullied?

I scarcely need to be. Who knows what else Daenerys finds morally reprehensible? Anyone might well have done something with which Daenerys takes great issue; they will deserve to be betrayed, also.

Now, one might believe that they have done nothing quite so bad as the slavers. Sure, it's probably true. However, the slavers weren't doing anything illegal. The one tipping point that allowed Daenerys to believe that the slavers deserved it is that she decided they did. She could decide that about anything. We have the unique perspective of being within Daenerys's head to know more about how she'll react, but the people with which she'll deal don't have that luxury.

The big issue is that it opens up a very dangerous precedent. Anyone may well decide that Daenerys deserves to be betrayed, too, and may well feel perfectly justified in doing so, just as Daenerys before them. No deal involving her can truly have any measure of trust, nothing she says. She has openly declared that her word means nothing. Very dangerous.

We see what happens with this kind of dealing in Westeros, after the Red Wedding. Guest right was broken because Walder Frey believed Robb Stark deserved it. There's no trust for them now, but the precedent was made, and it's had clear repercussions. Stonehearts little Brave Companions are breaking guest right too, because they feel that the Freys/Lannisters/Boltons/whoever else deserve it. The ransom for Petyr Pimple, firstly. Brienne and company were given guest right at the Crossroads Inn, and they served them right up to be hanged. Hyle Hunt deserved his fate simply for serving Lord Tarly, who was hunting them (because hunting outlaws is monstrous behaviour, of course).

Deserve doesn't come into a deal. You have to put all that aside, or there'll never be any trust. It needs to be put aside, because everybody is scum from some perspective.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Grey Worm even kept the slave name of the day to memorize the day Dany liberated him. This isn't something he would do out of obedience.

Isn't it? It was the name he had that day, and it's pretty clear that Daenerys wants her slaves to have just one name. I mean, as you said, he kept his slave name. You could be right though. Who knows? After what they went through, the way they think is basically alien.

I just don't know how to take them, really. Regarding the other freedmen, sure, a great many of them chose to pledge themselves to her. Some followed her because they didn't know what else to do, sure. But others seem to have done their own things. Gone their own way. Not one Unsullied chose to do so (as far as I can tell). It sounds more like their deep-seated obedience than anything else.

It's quite sad, really. The other freedmen had choices, but the Unsullied seem to me to have been... I don't know, free to choose to obey.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Eventually the effects of the wine of courage - enabling them to withstand pain better because they were feeling less - might wear off, but that drug didn't turn them into robots.

Mmm, I was wondering about the wine of courage. If Daenerys didn't kill the Good Masters, would they have given her the recipe to create more of it? Are they supposed to keep taking it, or was it only for their formative years, during their training? They've clearly stopped taking it now, but was that the norm and the damage has already been done, or will not taking it allow their senses to return? It's basically just poison, though, I'm not sure if there's any undoing it.

Regardless, the selling point of Unsullied is that they essentially are robots. I don't think it'd be possible to keep their reputation for so long if it wasn't mostly true.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It apparently isn't, or else things would have gone a little differently. They may have then refused to be freed by Daenerys, for instance. Or they may have stood with the their Good Masters because Dany was trying to free them when they commanded them to attack the slavers.

They essentially did refuse to be freed. If they weren't freed, they'd serve as her army. Now that they are freed, they... serve as her army. Whether she wishes to be called their master or their Queen, they serve her just the same. The same extreme obedience, the same undying loyalty.

Maybe it is just their choice. Every single one of them making a reasoned, informed choice to serve her. But it still looks a lot like an Unsullied slave army. Identical, one might say.

Not to mention there are perfectly good arguments that one cannot make sound, reasonable decisions under duress, and that the Unsullied training has put them in a perpetual state of duress. Or a state of duress that lasted beyond the time when they pledged themselves to Daenerys.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, there is no difference there. Any wealthy person choosing to live in Astapor but not owning slaves isn't different from any of the Good Masters who owned slaves.

I think I'd disagree. You can't choose where you're born or in what circumstances. You can choose not to own slaves. If there are any people doing this, that is different. What can they do, anyway? Leave and probably lose all their wealth? Who does that serve? It wouldn't change anything or help anyone. Stay and try to make a change? How? By themselves, at best they'd be ignored, at worst they'd be made an example. Without a sizable amount of support, change isn't on it's way, and such views (hell, if they exist at all) are clearly a minority. The best they'd be able to do, by themselves, is just live their lives without harming anyone.

Branding people guilty by association isn't helpful.

[SeanF]

I could not care less if the Astapor elite think they're entitled to deal in slaves, and pass laws to that effect. Sod them.  Any bargain with them is void ab initio.  People are not cattle.  There's a limit to moral relativism.

As to the rest, in a society where 85% are slaves, and the economy is based upon it, I'd be amazed if there were large numbers of the elite who are not involved in it.

The Unsullied chose their own officers, their own names (a big deal to a freedman) and went on strike when Hizdahr took over.  They visit wine shops and brothels.  The masters may think of them as mindless (slavers typically make the argument that slaves don't understand what freedom is) but it seems clear they have wills of their own.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

I could not care less if the Astapor elite think they're entitled to deal in slaves, and pass laws to that effect. Sod them.  Any bargain with them is void ab initio.  People are not cattle.  There's a limit to moral relativism.

As to the rest, in a society where 85% are slaves, and the economy is based upon it, I'd be amazed if there were large numbers of the elite who are not involved in it.

The Unsullied chose their own officers, their own names (a big deal to a freedman) and went on strike when Hizdahr took over.  They visit wine shops and brothels.  The masters may think of them as mindless (slavers typically make the argument that slaves don't understand what freedom is) but it seems clear they have wills of their own.

Agreed & to add to that about Grey Worm keeping his slave name @cyberdirectorfreedom doesn't he specifically say he kept that name because that's the name he had the day Dany freed him? 

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Agreed & to add to that about Grey Worm keeping his slave name @cyberdirectorfreedom doesn't he specifically say he kept that name because that's the name he had the day Dany freed him? 

From what I've read about the abolition of slavery in the West Indies, it meant an enormous amount to freed slaves that they could choose their own names.  It was a very visible expression that they were people, not objects any more.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

My take on Dany's orders fwiw:

"Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve"

She is telling them who to slay & who not too. That doesn't mean to kill everyone in between - she isn't saying to kill everyone over 12. 

It's akin to saying: kill all the slavers; the good masters, tokar wearers, soldiers, & men who hold whips  BUT if someone under twelve attempts to oppose you, do not harm them. If someone older than this tries to oppose them they would likely have to use lethal force to subdue them to continue their mission, someone under 12 trying to oppose them doesn't present as much of a threat, can be subdued without using lethal force. It's a protection for the children under 12, not an order to kill everyone over 12. 

I know LV & some others have spoke on this already, I just wanted to elaborate a little. 

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

On 1/29/2020 at 9:44 PM, Unit A2 said:

The Liberation of The Unsullied was a successful rescue mission.  The Sack of King's Landing is another matter entirely.  The first is a precise operation to rescue 8,000 trained slaves and many more in training. 

Any mistakes made here can be corrected because it came from strategy.  Contrast that to Robb breaking his oath to Walder.  The latter is not correctable because it is deeply part of Robb's character to value love and personal preference over oaths and contractual obligations.  Robb's is a fatal character flaw.  The former is a strategy in need of adjustment.

[The Commentator]

On 2/1/2020 at 2:47 AM, Bernie Mac said:

The Grand Masters are not immortal, each generation comes into the same society of ignorance, being taught the same things. The society is wrong, the people who live in it are just largely ignorant of it.

Sure. But Dany's solution has not changed the ways, slavery still exists in Astapor, only it is now much more bloody.

 

 

Slavery didn't exactly end suddenly in the south.  Yes it ended legally.  But slavery existed in the south for a time.  Thanks to Daenerys Targaryen, 8000 plus Unsullied are free.  Puppies and newborn babies are no longer ritualistically murdered daily.  Yes, the situation is bad, but don't kid yourself.  It was terrible before.  I would have done as Daenerys did.  There is always time to build up strength and fix the city later.  The most important matter at hand was to free the Unsullied.  

[Bernie Mac]

25 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

 The most important matter at hand was to free the Unsullied.  

Did it? They all serve Dany now. I'm not sure they understand freedom, are wired for it and they've replaced one master with another.

 

How many of the Unsullied have left Dany and gone onto live their own lives as freemen?

[SeanF]

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Did it? They all serve Dany now. I'm not sure they understand freedom, are wired for it and they've replaced one master with another.

 

How many of the Unsullied have left Dany and gone onto live their own lives as freemen?

It's always been an argument of slavers that some people are meant to be slaves, and would not understand what freedom means if you gave it to them.  Kraznys makes this argument in relation to Unsullied, and Xaro more generally.

We should recognise it for the bullshit it is.