Is Dany a White Savior?

[GZ Bloodraven]

1 minute ago, sifth said:

Dune is very much an anti messiah story.

As is ASOIAF.

[sifth]

59 minutes ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

As is ASOIAF.

That still remains to be seen, but all signs are pointing to that being the case; if Dany's story arc follows what her character did on the show.

Edited March 24 by sifth

[GZ Bloodraven]

55 minutes ago, sifth said:

That still remains to be seen, but all signs are pointing to that being the case; if Dany's story arc follows what her character did on the show.

I mean if George R R Martin writes a pro-messiah, pro-white savior narrative, I'll eat my words and re-assess.

[sifth]

48 minutes ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

I mean if George R R Martin writes a pro-messiah, pro-white savior narrative, I'll eat my words and re-assess.

I find the trope as a whole to be a joke. Apparently the twitter mob hates when a white person tries to destroy a universal evil like slavery and does something about it. It would seem only black and Asian people should fight to outlaw such evils by that daft "logic".

Edited March 24 by sifth

[GZ Bloodraven]

22 minutes ago, sifth said:

I find the trope as a whole to be a joke. Apparently the twitter mob hates when a white person tries to destroy a universal evil like slavery and does something about it. It would seem only black and Asian people should fight to outlaw such evils by that daft "logic".

There are definitely...media illiterate people who can't differentiate between problematic white savior narratives, and purposefully-told white savior narratives. However, the impulse to have stories about POC liberation be told from the perspective of POC isn't totally illogical; Dany's isolated POV is just so important in understanding her as a character, rather than viewing her through other POC POV characters' eyes.

Edited March 24 by GZ Bloodraven

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Issue with revolutions is that they usually replace one unjust status quo with another unjust status quo, since people who had grown up in the previous system simply do not know better.

Of course, sometimes you just have to get rid of the old ruling caste to see any change.

Peaceful reform of an unjust status quo is always preferable to revolution.

But peaceful reform only happens because liberal Tories and whigs conclude that “things must change, if we want them to stay the same.”  They can point to the examples of societies that failed to reform.

The British upper classes of the early 19th century were not much nicer than their Ghiscari counterparts, but they abolished slavery, emancipated Catholics and the middle classes, legalised trade unions etc. because they had the examples of the French and Haitian revolutions in mind.

That is the only way Essossi slavery will end.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, sifth said:

I find the trope as a whole to be a joke. Apparently the twitter mob hates when a white person tries to destroy a universal evil like slavery and does something about it. It would seem only black and Asian people should fight to outlaw such evils by that daft "logic".

It gets worse when slavery and violent conquest by African and Asian people gets justified as “their culture.”

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But there can. There are lots and lots and lots of examples for this.

I mean, George's narrative clearly has Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen as woman and man to allow them to fall in love and/or enter into an (arranged) marriage. That is how this silly thing could have been resolved.

If you have two pretenders for a throne ... and then marry each other then the conflict is over. At least open conflict and civil war.

But, seriously, the whole GoT setting is so full of holes and nonsense that it really makes no sense to seriously discuss it.

@GZ Bloodraven

'Dune' also makes little sense as a white savior story. Not only is the Imperium not racialized and the Fremen not exactly people of color or 'natives' ... but Paul Atreides is basically a figure Fremen culture and ideology (shaped by the Bene Gesserit) take and exploit. The story is not about race but about political and religious ideology ... and how it turns people into monsters, basically.

The Fremen also never actually need any saving. Never. They always controlled their planet and the spice-miners were always doing their stuff with their (clandestine) permission.

Two people can agree to settle their differences and share power.

I’m thinking more of the case where one person gets overthrown in favour of another.  Had Daenerys been overthrown in favour of Jon, it would be a choice between “her death or her revenge.”

But, as you say, Season 8 was full of crap.  Comparing it to Kay’s novels or The Death of Stalin is like comparing a child’s daubs to Goya.

Edited March 24 by SeanF

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Peaceful reform of an unjust status quo is always preferable to revolution.

But peaceful reform only happens because liberal Tories and whigs conclude that “things must change, if we want them to stay the same.”  They can point to the examples of societies that failed to reform.

The British upper classes of the early 19th century were not much nicer than their Ghiscari counterparts, but they abolished slavery, emancipated Catholics and the middle classes, legalised trade unions etc. because they had the examples of the French and Haitian revolutions in mind.

That is the only way Essossi slavery will end.

Partly true, but for the most part, peaceful reform happens because ruling class finds it profitable. And even revolutions only happen because part of the ruling class has different interests from other part of the ruling class, and thus bankrolls the revolution. Slavery in Europe eventually ended because feudalism / sharecropping was more profitable - in large part due to invention of the horse collar. Even so, it took a long time for slavery to finally end - and in the US, it ended only when industrial revolution made slavery largely untenable. It is fossil fuels that ended slavery for good, not good feelings or anger.

Haitian revolution may have been a trigger, but ultimately, Britain abolished slavery because it could afford to. It was rapidly industrializing at the time, and thus had no need for slaves.

Only way Essossi slavery will end if their culture is completely changed, from large urban elites dependant on slave labor to more of a Westerosi-style system of rural feudal elites utilizing sharecropping as the foundation of the economy. If that does not happen, then any revolution will be merely an interregnum. Haitian revolution is in fact a typical example - slaves rebelled... and then kept slavery. Fact is, despite the rather romanticized accounts, slavery in Haiti never ended. More than that, it was precisely leaders of the anti-slavery revolution who were most prolific in utilizing "unpaid labor" (read: slavery) after the successful revolution. And even today, some half a million children (4% of the population) in Haiti live in slavery, and God knows how many adults.

[SeanF]

41 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Partly true, but for the most part, peaceful reform happens because ruling class finds it profitable. And even revolutions only happen because part of the ruling class has different interests from other part of the ruling class, and thus bankrolls the revolution. Slavery in Europe eventually ended because feudalism / sharecropping was more profitable - in large part due to invention of the horse collar. Even so, it took a long time for slavery to finally end - and in the US, it ended only when industrial revolution made slavery largely untenable. It is fossil fuels that ended slavery for good, not good feelings or anger.

Haitian revolution may have been a trigger, but ultimately, Britain abolished slavery because it could afford to. It was rapidly industrializing at the time, and thus had no need for slaves.

Only way Essossi slavery will end if their culture is completely changed, from large urban elites dependant on slave labor to more of a Westerosi-style system of rural feudal elites utilizing sharecropping as the foundation of the economy. If that does not happen, then any revolution will be merely an interregnum. Haitian revolution is in fact a typical example - slaves rebelled... and then kept slavery. Fact is, despite the rather romanticized accounts, slavery in Haiti never ended. More than that, it was precisely leaders of the anti-slavery revolution who were most prolific in utilizing "unpaid labor" (read: slavery) after the successful revolution. And even today, some half a million children (4% of the population) in Haiti live in slavery, and God knows how many adults.

I think US slavery would have lasted a while longer, because its beneficiaries had a massive ideological commitment to it. Owners liked having big, slave-worked plantations, and free people without slaves liked having someone to look down upon.

There are some very prosperous Gulf States where informally, slavery still operates. For that matter, informal slavery exists almost everywhere.

The British could afford to do without slavery by 1833, and public opinion was largely hostile by then, but the Baptist Revolt was still a big push factor in ending the practice.

For a revolution to succeed, it’s the backing of a significant proportion of the regular armed forces that’s needed.  That was key in France, Russia, and Haiti, and also why movements like the Jacquerie, or German Peasants’ revolt failed.  Trotsky freely admitted the Reds would have been defeated, without the support of thousands of Tsarist officers.

Edited March 24 by SeanF

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, sifth said:

That still remains to be seen, but all signs are pointing to that being the case; if Dany's story arc follows what her character did on the show.

I’d be disappointed if Martin’s ultimate message was that of the two D’s:

”always keep hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse”,

given the multiple injustices that are described in his world.

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think US slavery would have lasted a while longer, because its beneficiaries had a massive ideological commitment to it. Owners liked having big, slave-worked plantations, and free people without slaves liked having someone to look down upon.

There are some very prosperous Gulf States where informally, slavery still operates. For that matter, informal slavery exists almost everywhere.

The British could afford to do without slavery by 1833, and public opinion was largely hostile by then, but the Baptist Revolt was still a big push factor in ending the practice.

For a revolution to succeed, it’s the backing of a significant proportion of the regular armed forces that’s needed.  That was key in France, Russia, and Haiti, and also why movements like the Jacquerie, or German Peasants’ revolt failed.  Trotsky freely admitted the Reds would have been defeated, without the support of thousands of Tsarist officers.

True. But point still stands that slavery only ended as a major economic force once economic preconditions had been met - and as you mention, it still exists. Yes, it still took additional effort and force to end slavery even once the preconditions had been met, but if they hadn't been, then slavery will have simply returned after a short pause - or immediately; as has happened so many times in the past.

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

I think that Daenerys is kind of a deconstruction of the White Savior trope. 

She does want to end slavery, out of compassion for slaves and repulsion at the practice, but doesn't have a real plan on how to do it and on how to change societies that have known and specialized in slavery for millenias, and still uses the Unsullied as soldiers. She also fails to understand and fit in within Meereen culture and society and decides that she doesn't belong here at the end of ADWD while embracing the Fire & Blood mantra. 

Once Daenerys leaves Essos it's unknown if her actions will have truly ended slavery on the long run, and will doubtlessly have caused lots of unnecessary destruction. 

She might also go to Westeros, thinking of herself as a savior to Westeros people only to find out that westerosi won't see or accept her as a savior or ruler.

[SeanF]

35 minutes ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

I think that Daenerys is kind of a deconstruction of the White Savior trope. 

She does want to end slavery, out of compassion for slaves and repulsion at the practice, but doesn't have a real plan on how to do it and on how to change societies that have known and specialized in slavery for millenias, and still uses the Unsullied as soldiers. She also fails to understand and fit in within Meereen culture and society and decides that she doesn't belong here at the end of ADWD while embracing the Fire & Blood mantra. 

Once Daenerys leaves Essos it's unknown if her actions will have truly ended slavery on the long run, and will doubtlessly have caused lots of unnecessary destruction. 

She might also go to Westeros, thinking of herself as a savior to Westeros people only to find out that westerosi won't see or accept her as a savior or ruler.

Actually, I'd say a big issue is that she tries too hard, to fit in with elite Meereenese culture.  The freedmen, coming from all over Essos, presumably have multiple cultures.

Elite Meereenese culture is based upon symbols of dominance and subjugation, such as the tokar, the Harpy, the fantastic hairstyles, the pyramids, the fighting pits.  This culture deserves to be treated with contempt.  And, actually, her original instinct, to ban the tokar, was correct.  The elite should be taken down from their pedestal.

Throughout most of ADWD, and especially in her final chapter, Daenerys does not think of herself as a saviour, but as a failure.  She's horrified that she can't march to save Astapor, hates the peace she signs with the slavers, and ultimately considers that she failed at Meereen.

As for the Unsullied, they may still be soldiers, but they're now paid professionals, who elect their own officers.  

 

Edited March 24 by SeanF

[sifth]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

As for the Unsullied, they may still be soldiers, but they're now paid professionals, who elect their own officers.  

 

They're also no longer being brainwashed into killing puppies and babies. I'd say that's more important than anything else.

[SeanF]

Untangling the Meereenese Knot, Part I: Who Poisoned the Locusts? | The Meereenese Blot (wordpress.com)

Relevant to this discussion, is Adam Feldman's essays on Meereen.  I cannot overstate how wrong I consider his take on the Meereenese storyline to be.  Errors include:-

1. The violence committed by the Sons of the Harpy was in retaliation for the crucifixion of 163 slave owners. No, the Great Masters crucified 163 children before Daenerys arrived at Meereen.  The Harpies are doing what the slavers have been doing for centuries.  They also target the freedmen, rather than Daenerys herself.

2.  The Harpies' violence is understandable because Daenerys "destroyed their way of life."  In fact, she let the masters off lightly.  Most of them survived, with their wealth, lands, and ships intact.  She listens to their grievances, and appoints some of them to her council.

3.  The peace was real.  But, an armada of ships is coming from Volantis, and according to Tyrion, most of the Yunkish lords are waiting for them to turn up, and will then attack the city.  No sooner does Dany open the fighting pits, then Hizdahr is trying to feed Tyrion and Penny to lions.

4.  The peace was fair.  A peace which makes a slaver King consort, allows them to reopen the fighting pits, and to resume slaving everywhere other than Meereenese territory is not remotely fair. Not that they even adhere to it, for they open a slave market outside the city.

5. Peace, however unjust, is always better than war, however just.  At this point, we're veering into the argument that anyone who is subject to gross injustice should just suck it up, until the perpetrators of injustice decide to change their ways.

6.  The Green Grace is an honest broker.  In the eyes of most readers, she's a self-serving terrorist.  Most readers are right.

7.  The interests of the slaves and freedmen are simply ignored by Feldman, during the course of these essays.  Daenerys' record as a ruler depends upon how successfully she appeases the elite.

8.  She has to choose between being "mother", favouring peace or "dragon" favouring war.  That is a false choice.  A good ruler, like Jaehaerys I, is both.  

9.  Resuming war against the slavers, is a turn to "darkness".  IMHO, it's a moral imperative.

10.  The slavers have made many concessions.  What concessions, exactly?  At the start of ADWD, slavery was theoretically illegal in Slavers Bay, Hizdahr was petitioning to reopen the fighting pits, which were closed.  By the end, slaving has resumed outside Meereen, there's a massive army camped outside the city (albeit, dying of dysentry), Hizdahr was made king consort, and the fighting pits reopened.  There's reason to believe that the slavers will be destroyed in the coming battle, but that is the very opposite of what Feldman advocates.

 

 

Edited March 24 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

1. The violence committed by the Sons of the Harpy was in retaliation for the crucifixion of 163 slave owners. No, the Great Masters crucified 163 children before Daenerys arrived at Meereen.  The Harpies are doing what the slavers have been doing for centuries.  They also target the freedmen, rather than Daenerys herself.

I'm a little confused. Yes the Masters crucified the children, but that doesn't exclude the SotH retaliating for Danaerys retaliating...You can retaliate for a retaliatory attack...

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

2.  The Harpies' violence is understandable because Daenerys "destroyed their way of life."  In fact, she let the masters off lightly.  Most of them survived, with their wealth, lands, and ships intact.  She listens to their grievances, and appoints some of them to her council.

I don't think he's saying it is 'understandable' as in sympathetic, just that the reason for the campaign is that Daenerys got rid of the things they were used to practicing.

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

3.  The peace was real.  But, an armada of ships is coming from Volantis, and according to Tyrion, most of the Yunkish lords are waiting for them to turn up, and will then attack the city.  No sooner does Dany open the fighting pits, then Hizdahr is trying to feed Tyrion and Penny to lions.

I thought he was arguing there the peace within Meereen was real, so Volantis isn't related to that. Yes Hizdahr trying to feed them to the lions is repulsive but it isn't related to the internal peace of Meereen. I mean everyone except Daenerys wants to open the fighting pits. Hizdahr and the Shavepate actually agree on it.

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

5. Peace, however unjust, is always better than war, however just.  At this point, we're veering into the argument that anyone who is subject to gross injustice should just suck it up, until the perpetrators of injustice decide to change their ways.

I think you are taking the point he made a bit too far here. I think he was trying to say that it wasn't worth instantly throwing away the peace in Meereen to fight the Slavers right away because the innocent people Daenerys felt responsible for would die. After all, he doesn't seem to have an issue with Daenerys' initial decision to attack SB, just the way she handled things after with abandoning Astapor. He did phrase it badly in some parts but I more got the impression that what he was going for was 'you have to compromise sometimes' rather than 'you should blindly always accept the status quo however bad'.

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

8.  She has to choose between being "mother", favouring peace or "dragon" favouring war.  That is a false choice.  A good ruler, like Jaehaerys I, is both. 

I do think though she will have to chose between F&B and whatever else. Dragons plant no trees, after all.

I don't think I agree with what he proposes but on the other hand it would potentially add more depth to the region because the slavers, being cartoonishly evil, are boring villains.

Edited March 24 by Craving Peaches

[BlackLightning]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

”There cannot be two emperors.  Two *living* emperors.

Right. I love his work but the gag is that this is simply not true.

There have been soooo many examples of nations or geopolitical power blocs that have multiple kings and emperors at the same time.

To name one, the Roman Empire actually have had four emperors at one point.

1 hour ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

I'm not saying she despises the culture, I'm saying she's the only perspective on her regime change: a French noblewoman, exiled in Algeria, marrying a Kenyan political leader, living in Egypt for a bit, and then helping Saudi Arabian, Iraqi, and Iranian woman achieve their freedom by organizing them in overthrowing their leader, only to spawn a pro-oppressing women terrorist group and running back to Kenya, and the only perspective we get on the "liberating Saudi Arabian, Iraqi and Iranian women" is from the white French woman...that's a whit savior. 

This is actually a very good and accurate illustration...except for the minor detail that Dany focuses on all of humanity not just women.

But what is the point of bringing up the concept of a white savior.

Back when the story was first being written, GRRM was very strict about the number and use of POVs. At first, there were only supposed to 5 and then 7 and then 8. He held close to that number for as long as he could until he saw that there was an absolute need to expand the list of POVs in A Feast for Crows

So, the fact that Dany is the lone POV for the state-toppling slave rebellions was not intentionally done for the white savior. I don't even believe Dany was anti-slavery in the original iterations of the story. As far as I know, after hatching the dragons, there was supposed to have been a three-year time jump during which the dragons would grow, and Dany would create a world-class Queensguard. When the story resumed, Dany was supposed to go back to Vaes Dothrak, take control of the Dothraki (probably killing rivals in the process) and then lead them to Westeros.

I think the special Queensguard and the idea of the Unsullied are one in the same but there doesn't appear to have been a big slavery plotline.

[SeanF]

36 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm a little confused. Yes the Masters crucified the children, but that doesn't exclude the SotH retaliating for Danaerys retaliating...You can retaliate for a retaliatory attack...

I don't think he's saying it is 'understandable' as in sympathetic, just that the reason for the campaign is that Daenerys got rid of the things they were used to practicing.

I thought he was arguing there the peace within Meereen was real, so Volantis isn't related to that. Yes Hizdahr trying to feed them to the lions is repulsive but it isn't related to the internal peace of Meereen. I mean everyone except Daenerys wants to open the fighting pits. Hizdahr and the Shavepate actually agree on it.

I think you are taking the point he made a bit too far here. I think he was trying to say that it wasn't worth instantly throwing away the peace in Meereen to fight the Slavers right away because the innocent people Daenerys felt responsible for would die. After all, he doesn't seem to have an issue with Daenerys' initial decision to attack SB, just the way she handled things after with abandoning Astapor. He did phrase it badly in some parts but I more got the impression that what he was going for was 'you have to compromise sometimes' rather than 'you should blindly always accept the status quo however bad'.

I do think though she will have to chose between F&B and whatever else. Dragons plant no trees, after all.

I don't think I agree with what he proposes but on the other hand it would potentially add more depth to the region because the slavers, being cartoonishly evil, are boring villains.

The Harpies have been practising terror, for centuries.  Terror is not something that Daenerys introduced to SB.  Nobody in the books says "It's unfair that old Grazdan got nailed up, he was completely opposed to the crucifixions."  We get zero suggestion that any Great Master saw anything wrong with this.  Feldman expresses a good deal of indignation over the crucifixion of the 163 masters, but none that I can see, over the crucifixion of the children.

Right from the outset, the Yunkish sent envoys to Volantis.  Even when they were negotiating with Daenerys, they knew the Volantenes were on their way.  I can't believe they would have withheld this information from people like the Green Grace.  If and when the Volantene armada rolls up, does anyone believe that the Harpies or the masters would man the walls along with the freedmen?  Volantis IMHO, is the rotten plank on which his argument collapses. 

My impression from the essays is not that Daenerys must pick and choose her fights, but that she must never fight.

 

Edited March 24 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Harpies have been practising terror, for centuries.  Terror is not something that Daenerys introduced to SB.  Nobody in the books says "It's unfair that old Grazdan got nailed up, he was completely opposed to the crucifixions."

Yes, and? You can retaliate out of anger, retaliations often aren't justified.

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

We get zero suggestion that any Great Master saw anything wrong with this.

What, saw anything wrong with their fellows being nailed up? I thought it was quite obvious that this was one of the reasons for the Harpy's support...If you're talking about the crucifixion of the children then no, but I don't think anyone is arguing this...

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Feldman expresses a good deal of indignation over the crucifixion of the 163 masters

I wouldn't say indignation. He expressed concern given that Daenerys herself seemed to be questioning whether she really did the right thing in that instance.

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

My impression from the essays is not that Daenerys must pick and choose her fights, but that she must never fight.

I guess we just got different impressions from reading the essays. Oh well.