ASOIAF: Timely and Relevant?

[CamiloRP]

8 hours ago, Lady Dacey said:

Well met, Camilo! Mátria amada, Brasil. I've never met a brazilian who didn't boast of speaking spanish (though most don't) but few hermanos speak portuguese. Que legal. Há outros lusófonos aqui no fórum também. I believe there are even more spanish-speaking people. Unfortunately I feel much more comfortable in english than spanish, though it shames me to admit it. I read and understand spanish well enough, expressing myself is a different matter. It tangles with portuguese and then I choke, and when I try to extricate myself from my mother tongue I fall in the traps of more foreign langagues, and next thing I know there are words in dutch finding their way between hola and mucho gusto.

I'm way better at english than portuguese, I know enough that I can be understood by and understand (if you wan't me too, but some Brazilians speak too fast and I'm lost).

 

Quote

But not to derail this thread too much, I believe we have given some examples of how 'timely and relevant' asoiaf is - though I mantain that applies to most litetature. We use it as fodder for imagination, and that in itself can be political. In engaging with the narrative our views and opinions about the story and its characters are constantly informed by our political and ideological beliefs. In a similar fashion, I believe that in exercing critical thinking about fictional narratives we are ever honing our abilities to engage with the "real world".

Couldn't possibly agree more, with the caveat that is applies to most good literature.

[Farstrider]

On 10/19/2020 at 5:43 PM, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

I would like to see an empire which encompass western Essos and Westeros under Targaryen rule.  Your  prediction may happen but it will be temporary.  The history of Westeros has proven that the lives of the people are improved when the land and its people are united and the power of the great houses are curbed.  Queen Allysanne proved that.  Things went south when the Baratheons and their Stark and Arryn allies took over.  They could not keep the ironborn in line for long.  Westeros broke apart under their watch.  The Starks are even  part of the problem because Robb attempted to make the north independent.  It is a good thing he failed. 

The Free Cities will remain independent.  Ghis and the Dothraki will become an Empire of the Dragon.  The bulk of Westeros will become the third part of that Empire of the Dragon.  The Tyrells and the Riverlords will not be a problem.  The north will be independent for a while because of geography and moat cailin.  I think they will rue that independence when the white walkers arrive.  The Starks will worship the Others to survive and do as Craster did.  They won't live forever though  What's left of the north will be brought back into the fold at the end of winter. 

[The Commentator]

On 10/19/2020 at 4:04 PM, CamiloRP said:

Nope, Targs only came to Dragonstone a few years before The Doom.

They didn't built any kingdom, they colonized it, took it by war. It'd be the same problem if the Starks did it, yeah, they are of The North and of Westeros, but them ruling over The Reach, or Dorne just by right of conquest would be colonialism.

Now, if some sort of agreement could be reached in which a king is chosen from the lords, any lord ruling would not be colonialism, save the Targs, who conquered the realm by fire and blood. Also the presence of a Targaryen undermines democracy of any sorts, as traditionalist would be inclined to vote for Targaryens regardless of their proposals or capability to rule.

The Targaryens started off as lords and ladies of Westeros.  Dragonstone was theirs.  That is no different from another family holding, say, the Reach and then becoming the ruling dynasty after conquering additional territories.  The Targaryens were no longer foreigners when they built the seven kingdoms.  Besides, every family in Westeros were foreigners at one time.  The western continent did not have humans at first.  They are all conquerors.  The Targaryens are just better in every way.  

[CamiloRP]

7 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Targaryens started off as lords and ladies of Westeros.  Dragonstone was theirs.  That is no different from another family holding, say, the Reach and then becoming the ruling dynasty after conquering additional territories.  The Targaryens were no longer foreigners when they built the seven kingdoms. Besides, every family in Westeros were foreigners at one time.  The western continent did not have humans at first.  They are all conquerors. 

yes... they where foreigners to Dorne, The reach, The Stormlands, The Westerlands, The Iron Islands, The Vale, The Riverlands and The North.

They colonized those lands, by fear, war and death. Having any other person rule would not be colonialism because now the seven kingdoms are one (and that would be ruler nor their house had no hand in it).

For example, when the colonizers came to America, they grouped different lands as one, then the colonizers where kicked off (kinda) and now the natives rule over lands they are technically foreigners to, but the land is already shaped as one, so it's not colonialism, but having the Brittish rule over the US, the french over Canada or the Portuguese over Brazil would be.

 

Quote

The Targaryens are just better in every way.  

This statement is: racist, clasist, and points me to the fact that you haven't understood this series at all.

[The Commentator]

Just now, CamiloRP said:

yes... they where foreigners to Dorne, The reach, The Stormlands, The Westerlands, The Iron Islands, The Vale, The Riverlands and The North.

They colonized those lands, by fear, war and death. Having any other person rule would not be colonialism because now the seven kingdoms are one (and that would be ruler nor their house had no hand in it).

For example, when the colonizers came to America, they grouped different lands as one, then the colonizers where kicked off (kinda) and now the natives rule over lands they are technically foreigners to, but the land is already shaped as one, so it's not colonialism, but having the Brittish rule over the US, the french over Canada or the Portuguese over Brazil would be.

 

This statement is: racist, clasist, and points me to the fact that you haven't understood this series at all.

The Targaryens are no more of a foreigner than the other families.  They all came from the east.  So it is very silly to differentiate.  All of these families got to where they are by war, death, and fear.  The Warg King didn't willingly hand over his lands and daughters to the Starks.  The Starks murdered him and took everything he had.  Including his daughters.  Conquest.  What the Targaryens did was no different and may even be kinder in comparison.  Using terms like "racists" to describe someone's opinion on a fantasy forum debate is not really polite.

[CamiloRP]

51 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Targaryens are no more of a foreigner than the other families.  They all came from the east.  So it is very silly to differentiate. 

It is different, as the Targaryens colonized the rest of Westeros, it doesn't matter how long they had been there, if the Starks had done so they would be colonizers of the other kingdoms and they would be equally wrong.

 

Quote

All of these families got to where they are by war, death, and fear.  The Warg King didn't willingly hand over his lands and daughters to the Starks.  The Starks murdered him and took everything he had.  Including his daughters.  Conquest. 

Yes, that is absolutely true, but that happened thousands of years ago, and the people who've been colonized no longer identify as that, the Targaryen conquest was only three hundred years ago, people still remember fondly the pre-Targaryen times and there are independence movements, which doesn't happen with the pre-Stark or pre-Lannister.

It would be like saying the conquest of America wasn't a big deal because the lands they took previously belonged to someone else. In fact, no conquest matters through this lens, as in any case you could name I guarantee there where people living there before the ones who got conquered. 

To The Reach, The Stormlands, The Riverlands, etc the Targaryens would always be foreign invaders, but if, let's say, a Lannister would rule over them it wouldn't be colonialism, it's not like a British dude ruling over the US, is like a Minesota dude ruling over the US and by extension ruling over California, they weren't kin before the British showed up and colonized, but they are now, the British tho aren't kin to them.

 

Quote

Using terms like "racists" to describe someone's opinion on a fantasy forum debate is not really polite.

Thinking that someone is better than someone else because of their genetics is the definition of racism, now, you may not be a racist, I don't know, but that statement was.

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

Wasnt Dragonstone a colony of Valyria, which didnt colonize all of Westeros but a ruling family from that place built an empire for themselves there. A bit different from the First Men and Andals who were a large group of diverse people, not some dude who sold his stock before the crash. Its questionable if the Targaryens even melted with the pot like everyone else.  Ironically many people fled from Essos to Westeros because of dragons and here they show up again on another continent centuries later. It reminds me of the war-refugee-war cycle in our world today.

[Wall Flower]

5 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Wasnt Dragonstone a colony of Valyria, which didnt colonize all of Westeros but a ruling family from that place built an empire for themselves there. A bit different from the First Men and Andals who were a large group of diverse people, not some dude who sold his stock before the crash. Its questionable if the Targaryens even melted with the pot like everyone else.  Ironically many people fled from Essos to Westeros because of dragons and here they show up again on another continent centuries later. It reminds me of the war-refugee-war cycle in our world today.

You seem to be letting the First Men and the Andals off pretty easy. The First Men invaded an inhabited continent and fought a centuries long war against the indigenous people before agreeing to a treaty and adopting the religion of the Children. The Andals also invaded Westeros and conquered kingdom after kingdom, imposing their language, culture and religion on the realms they conquered. Only their inability to conquer the North allowed some of the earlier cultures and religion to survive. That looks a lot like colonialism to me.

I agree that Dragonstone appears to have been an outpost of the Valyrian empire. However, when the Targaryens conquered the rest of Westeros, they imposed their rule but left much of the political, cultural and religious stucture intact.

 

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

Thank you all for your interests.  I welcome the diversity of opinions.  I do not want Westeros to break up into the crazy place that it was before the Targaryen rule.  The real world has changed since the story was begun by the author.  The author's plot may adapt to keep up. 

[Darth Sidious]

On 10/18/2020 at 3:13 PM, CamiloRP said:

Nope, I'm not arguing this at all, in a perfect world all the great houses would cease to be, but the Targaryen's rule over Westeros is colonialism, and that's bad.

 

I'm not arguing that the kingdoms should be split, unity is the answer, but unity under Targaryen rule would be colonialism.

Also, the common folk have a better chance under Dornish rule, as Dornish law seems to be more about social justice.

 

I agree with everything except the last line, no one should rule over anyone just cause, monarchy is bad and it brought many horrible governments both in Westeros and in the real world, colonialism is also bad, and the Targaryen's is a colonialist dynasty. Westeros should be united because they wish to be united, not because they fear an invader with nukes, and the only way to accept that is to be able to rule without need for war or genetics, being from any kingdom.

The Targaryens were not exploiting the natural resources of the land.  The old European colonialists were taking natural resources from overseas and using it to fatten themselves at home.  The Targaryen kingdom is on Westeros and is Westeros.  What the people and the land produced stayed in Westeros.  The distribution was uneven because the lords and their families do not work but reap most of the benefits.  But that is not the fault of the Targaryens.  That is feudalism and has existed before Visenya, Rhaenys, and Aegon landed.  

A remote government is not in itself a bad thing.  It is not any worse than a local lord subjugating the peasants and small folks with force.  Which is what the nobles have done in Westeros for as far back as thousands of years.  Westeros will be the frontline in the war with the Others.  It will not be able to stand on its own.  Help is needed from overseas.  And that help obligates them to those who will save them.  The most logical place for the Essosi to make their stand is on the stepstones.  The climate is warmer and it is a smaller patch of crossable area to defend.  That is, for the Essosi who could care less about Westeros.  I would say defend the stepstones and wait for the weather to turn before considering going to Westeros.  If the people of Westeros get help from Daenerys and her forces, yes, they absolutely owe it to her to accept her rule.  No wiggle room there.  

[CamiloRP]

13 minutes ago, Prince Rhaego's Soul said:

The Targaryens were not exploiting the natural resources of the land.  The old European colonialists were taking natural resources from overseas and using it to fatten themselves at home.  The Targaryen kingdom is on Westeros and is Westeros.  What the people and the land produced stayed in Westeros.  The distribution was uneven because the lords and their families do not work but reap most of the benefits.  But that is not the fault of the Targaryens.  That is feudalism and has existed before Visenya, Rhaenys, and Aegon landed.  

It doesn't matter if they where moving resources or not, they still conquered the land by war, having Westeros remain united under Targaryen rule is continuing colonialism.

 

Quote

A remote government is not in itself a bad thing.  It is not any worse than a local lord subjugating the peasants and small folks with force.  Which is what the nobles have done in Westeros for as far back as thousands of years.  Westeros will be the frontline in the war with the Others.  It will not be able to stand on its own.  Help is needed from overseas.  And that help obligates them to those who will save them.  The most logical place for the Essosi to make their stand is on the stepstones.  The climate is warmer and it is a smaller patch of crossable area to defend.  That is, for the Essosi who could care less about Westeros.  I would say defend the stepstones and wait for the weather to turn before considering going to Westeros.  If the people of Westeros get help from Daenerys and her forces, yes, they absolutely owe it to her to accept her rule.  No wiggle room there.  

That is bonkers, it's like the US demanding oil for meddling in the Middle East, and she would not be just helping Westeros, she'll be helping herself too. Do the people of Westeros need to accept Stannis's rule? no, of course not. Should the Stark's rule after the many times they stop the Freefolk from invading and even stopping the Night King? nope. Should Mace Tyrell save Westeros from the invading Aegon, should he be the king? What if JonCon had stopped the rebellion? What if some completely shitty ruler stops The Others, should they be ruler still? The people never owe acceptance to any ruler, unless democratically elected, and even then they can still oppose them and force them to leave.

[SeanF]

On 10/23/2020 at 5:31 PM, CamiloRP said:

yes... they where foreigners to Dorne, The reach, The Stormlands, The Westerlands, The Iron Islands, The Vale, The Riverlands and The North.

They colonized those lands, by fear, war and death. Having any other person rule would not be colonialism because now the seven kingdoms are one (and that would be ruler nor their house had no hand in it).

For example, when the colonizers came to America, they grouped different lands as one, then the colonizers where kicked off (kinda) and now the natives rule over lands they are technically foreigners to, but the land is already shaped as one, so it's not colonialism, but having the Brittish rule over the US, the french over Canada or the Portuguese over Brazil would be.

 

Well, the Plantagenets were Norse/French, the Tudors Welsh/French, the Stuarts Scots/French, William of Orange was a Dutchman, and the House of Hanover were Germans.  My own country was never ruled by a native dynasty after 1066. 

But, did these dynasties colonise the English?  One could possibly make a case for the first of them, but even then, there was no foreign power on whose behalf, England was exploited.  There is no case to make in respect of the rest.  Likewise with the Targaryens.  The Seven Kingdoms were not ruled in the interest of a foreign power.  The existing population were not dispossessed of their land or forced to adopt a new religion or language.   They simply provided the overlord. It would be no different in principle if a Stark, a Martell, a Lannister,  or an Arryn had established his rule over the entirety fo the continent.

[CamiloRP]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Well, the Plantagenets were Norse/French, the Tudors Welsh/French, the Stuarts Scots/French, William of Orange was a Dutchman, and the House of Hanover were Germans.  My own country was never ruled by a native dynasty after 1066. 

But, did these dynasties colonise the English?  One could possibly make a case for the first of them, but even then, there was no foreign power on whose behalf, England was exploited.  There is no case to make in respect of the rest.  Likewise with the Targaryens.  The Seven Kingdoms were not ruled in the interest of a foreign power.  The existing population were not dispossessed of their land or forced to adopt a new religion or language.   They simply provided the overlord. It would be no different in principle if a Stark, a Martell, a Lannister,  or an Arryn had established his rule over the entirety fo the continent.

But still, they came in either warred or threatened the people who lived there and called themselves their rullers. And they did exploit their resources by the way of the king's taxes. They didn't need to do anything else, they still took that land by war, they respected some of the ruling lords there, yes, but they are still invaders in those lands.

[Moiraine Sedai]

 

1. Val's prejudice against Shireen because of her fear of greyscale. 

2.  Daenerys making the tough decision to close the gates to those carrying the pale mare.  

3.  Jon Con's infection.

4.   Letting the Wildlings into the kingdom as refugees.

The story is timely without being direct.  

[Aebram]

21 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

But still, they came in either warred or threatened the people who lived there and called themselves their rullers.

It seems like this has become a debate about semantics, not about history or the story itself. The English language is a bit slippery in this area. Here's my take on it.

When a group of people from country A move to country B and establish a settlement, that's called "colonization." It may or may not involve violence against the previous inhabitants of country B.

"Colonialism" is not the same; that's a political term. The new settlement is not colonialist unless the government of country A controls it from afar, effectively making it part of country A. If the settlement has its own independent government, then it's colonization, but not colonialism.

By that logic, when the Targaryens settled on Dragonstone, that was clearly colonization. If they were still controlled by the Valyrian government at that time, then it was also colonialism, and Dragonstone was a Valyrian colony. But I don't think the books are specific about that. 

And of course, the Valyrian empire was long gone when the Targaryens began their conquest of the rest of Westeros. So Aegon's Conquest should be viewed as one part of Westeros taking over another part. That's not colonialism, at least not by the definition I've given. It's just another intramural fight of the sort that had been going on in Westeros for thousands of years. 

Also, colonialism usually involves taking control of the original inhabitants of country A, and exploiting their resources. Aegon didn't do any of that. He established a seat of government on the Westerosi mainland; he didn't try to rule from Dragonstone. He didn't levy new taxes, or steal all the gold and ship it back to Dragonstone. He didn't impose Valyrian laws, customs, or language on the Westerosi people.

[CamiloRP]

5 hours ago, Aebram said:

It seems like this has become a debate about semantics, not about history or the story itself. The English language is a bit slippery in this area. Here's my take on it.

When a group of people from country A move to country B and establish a settlement, that's called "colonization." It may or may not involve violence against the previous inhabitants of country B.

"Colonialism" is not the same; that's a political term. The new settlement is not colonialist unless the government of country A controls it from afar, effectively making it part of country A. If the settlement has its own independent government, then it's colonization, but not colonialism.

By that logic, when the Targaryens settled on Dragonstone, that was clearly colonization. If they were still controlled by the Valyrian government at that time, then it was also colonialism, and Dragonstone was a Valyrian colony. But I don't think the books are specific about that. 

And of course, the Valyrian empire was long gone when the Targaryens began their conquest of the rest of Westeros. So Aegon's Conquest should be viewed as one part of Westeros taking over another part. That's not colonialism, at least not by the definition I've given. It's just another intramural fight of the sort that had been going on in Westeros for thousands of years. 

Also, colonialism usually involves taking control of the original inhabitants of country A, and exploiting their resources. Aegon didn't do any of that. He established a seat of government on the Westerosi mainland; he didn't try to rule from Dragonstone. He didn't levy new taxes, or steal all the gold and ship it back to Dragonstone. He didn't impose Valyrian laws, customs, or language on the Westerosi people.

Ohhh, my bad, english isn't my natvi language :/

Tho I thought Aegon did exploit the resources as there where no 'king's taxes' before him.

[Rose of Red Lake]

8 hours ago, Aebram said:

He didn't impose Valyrian laws, customs, or language on the Westerosi people.

He made them a country ruled by a king who marries his sister(s). Targaryens basically told them they had to accept that because they were so much better than everyone else - or they'd die.

8 hours ago, Aebram said:

He didn't levy new taxes,

Okay, but his son did: 

“King Maegor’s wars had been ruinously expensive, exhausting the royal treasury. To refill his coffers Maegor’s master of coin had raised existing taxes and imposed new ones, but these measures brought in less gold than anticipated and only served to deepen the anathema with which the lords of the realm regarded the king. Nor had the situation improved with the ascension of Jaehaerys.”

8 hours ago, Aebram said:

or steal all the gold and ship it back to Dragonstone.

Don't be naive:

“At that time Duskendale was the principal Westerosi port on the narrow sea, and had grown fat and wealthy from the trade that passed through its harbor. Visenya Targaryen did not allow the town to be sacked, but she did not hesitate to claim its riches, greatly swelling the coffers of the Conquerors.”

8 hours ago, Aebram said:

Also, colonialism usually involves taking control of the original inhabitants of country A, and exploiting their resources. Aegon didn't do any of that. He established a seat of government on the Westerosi mainland; he didn't try to rule from Dragonstone.

So white settlers are not colonialists because they lived in the same country as the natives? 

Quote

Also, colonialism usually involves taking control of the original inhabitants of country A, and exploiting their resources. Aegon didn't do any of that.

Well, he and his sister certainly burned up a lot of resources...

[Aebram]

16 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Don't be naive:

“At that time Duskendale was the principal Westerosi port on the narrow sea, and had grown fat and wealthy from the trade that passed through its harbor. Visenya Targaryen did not allow the town to be sacked, but she did not hesitate to claim its riches, greatly swelling the coffers of the Conquerors.”

On 10/25/2020 at 2:48 PM, Aebram said:

Also, colonialism usually involves taking control of the original inhabitants of country A, and exploiting their resources. Aegon didn't do any of that. He established a seat of government on the Westerosi mainland; he didn't try to rule from Dragonstone.

So white settlers are not colonialists because they lived in the same country as the natives? 

My tablet isn't very good at editing quotes, so excuse me for replying to all your comments  down here.

Duskendale fought against Aegon. He was harsh to his enemies, but open-handed with those who bent the knee. Taking reparations from a defeated enemy is not the same as exploiting a peaceful colony.

And I think the answer to your question is Yes; and by the way, the skin color of either side has nothing to do with it.  "Colonialism" refers to government from afar.  Not all colonies are colonialistic.  Either type may exploit or conquer the natives; I'm not suggestong that either type was morally superior.

I may have gotten a few facts wrong, but my main point was that we're not talking about the story any more here; we're debating the meaning of a word. I was hoping to clear things up so that we can move on. I don't seem to have succeeded ...

[Rose of Red Lake]

5 hours ago, Aebram said:

My tablet isn't very good at editing quotes, so excuse me for replying to all your comments  down here.

Duskendale fought against Aegon. He was harsh to his enemies, but open-handed with those who bent the knee. Taking reparations from a defeated enemy is not the same as exploiting a peaceful colony.

And I think the answer to your question is Yes; and by the way, the skin color of either side has nothing to do with it.  "Colonialism" refers to government from afar.  Not all colonies are colonialistic.  Either type may exploit or conquer the natives; I'm not suggestong that either type was morally superior.

I may have gotten a few facts wrong, but my main point was that we're not talking about the story any more here; we're debating the meaning of a word. I was hoping to clear things up so that we can move on. I don't seem to have succeeded ...

I think OP started us on this path, wanting Daenerys to impose LAW AND ORDER (same thing Trump is tweeting about right now) and hoping she will "civilize" the savage people of Westeros. OP is ringing all of the manifest destiny/imperialist/autocratic/colonialist bells. So we're still a bit on topic for this thread. And colonialism doesn't have a single definition. There is settler colonialism, internal colonialism, neocolonialism, ect. Our understandings of colonialist logic has expanded now. The source of the exploitation does not have to be from afar. Westeros was ruled by a group of people who don't look like them - in fact GRRM even said the Targaryens were meant to be a "race apart." They have differences in sexual practices and religion; the North is now ruled by someone who doesn't share their faith. And the continent is so large and the North is so far away from King's Landing that it might feel like being ruled by a colonialist power. The lines in these terms are blurred.

Daenerys is most likely to be on a colonialist and imperialist path. Daenerys' line "dragons plant no trees" suggest that she's conquering and moving on, taking lands in her name, establishing seats of power, not bothering to rebuild, effectively creating colonies everywhere she goes.