The Fandom and Defending Atrocities

[csuszka1948]

58 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Whatever her mistakes, I don’t think her actual record, in terms of emancipation, compares at all badly with those of the US, British, Brazilian, or Russian governments, in the 19th century.  No government actually did much for the freed slaves, after emancipation.  Dany did not carry out any redistribution of property (which would have helped the slaves), but no one did so in real life. Dany did at least create a standing army of freedmen, admit them to guilds, and try to promote agriculture and handicrafts.

 

 

 

Well, Dany wasn't a complete failure - just she feels herself as one - but GRRM unfortunately failed to show that the abolition of slavery can bring benefits to the economy long-term. He could have at least showed a former slave opening a business (perhaps from the money stolen during the sack) and other former slaves working more efficiently for him (because they are more motivated) than for their former masters.

I also feel the disappointment comes from comparing her to Jon, who was undoubtedly better as an administrator (but worse at obtaining loyalty), but Jon's experience with both the NW and the wildlings and his fewer insecurities (+the fact that he was miraculously helped out of the food shortage) gave him an advantage over Dany. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Well, Dany wasn't a complete failure - just she feels herself as one - but GRRM unfortunately failed to show that the abolition of slavery can bring benefits to the economy long-term. He could have at least showed a former slave opening a business (perhaps from the money stolen during the sack) and other former slaves working more efficiently for him (because they are more motivated) than for their former masters.

I also feel the disappointment comes from comparing her to Jon, who was undoubtedly better as an administrator (but worse at obtaining loyalty), but Jon's experience with both the NW and the wildlings and his fewer insecurities (+the fact that he was miraculously helped out of the food shortage) gave him an advantage over Dany. 

Some people have a pseudo-historical idea about abolitionism, that one day, lots of people decided slavery was wrong and dedicated their lives to abolishing it. And, they judge Dany against that standard (if they aren’t actually defending slavery in the novels), branding her a hypocrite for not conforming to them.

In reality, it was a long process of self-education , for most people.  Toussaint L’Ouverture was a slave owner, who initially pressed to make the system less cruel, before freeing his own slaves, and then concluding the system had to go. Wilberforce was seven years an MP before he took an interest in slavery, and then only to campaign against the trade.  It took him a while longer to decide it had to go, and even then, the slave owners were compensated.  Lincoln only wanted to prevent the extension of slavery into new territories, and made clear repeatedly to the South, he had no plans to abolish it in slave States.  Even after the Emancipation Proclamation, he was willing to compensate the owners.

Dany makes compromises (too many) because that’s what leaders do.  And, as you say, she beats herself up about it.  But, where we hear the voices of freedmen, it’s clear they don’t want the masters back.

[csuszka1948]

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Some people have a pseudo-historical idea about abolitionism, that one day, lots of people decided slavery was wrong and dedicated their lives to abolishing it. And, they judge Dany against that standard (if they aren’t actually defending slavery in the novels), branding her a hypocrite for not conforming to them.

 

Yes, but there is a difference in that Dany is a revolutionary who starts out by killing the elite masters in Astapor.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, but there is a difference in that Dany is a revolutionary who starts out by killing the elite masters in Astapor.

In an ocean of slavers, the elite of Astapor are the whale shit on the seabed.

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

In an ocean of slavers, the elite of Astapor are the whale shit on the seabed.

They are straight up the whales... 'Yellow Whale' and all that.

[the trees have eyes]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I’m quite sure that Elia’s murder was intended.  She would be a perpetual embarrassment to the new regime, seeking justice for her murdered children.

That does seem logical but we have this from Tywin to Tyrion:

A Storm of Swords - Tyrion VI

It might serve, Tyrion had to concede, but the snake will not be happy. "Far be it from me to question your cunning, Father, but in your place I do believe I'd have let Robert Baratheon bloody his own hands."

Lord Tywin stared at him as if he had lost his wits. "You deserve that motley, then. We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children." His father shrugged. "I grant you, it was done too brutally. Elia need not have been harmed at all, that was sheer folly. By herself she was nothing."

Now he could be lying, even to himself, but it does seem he is telling Tyrion the truth here.  He explains why he decided to have the children killed and earlier gives the detail of what Lorch did to Rhaenys.  It doesn't show a great insight into motherhood or close-knit family relationships but Tywin is Tywin and in a patriarchal society he might expect the realities of power and realpolitik considerations on Doran's part to override a grieving mother's desire for revenge.  I imagine it's how he would handle it unless the odds were in his favour.  And in the short term Elia is still useful as a hostage until Doran's loyalty is gained, grudgingly or not.

Edited August 5, 2023 by the trees have eyes

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

That does seem logical but we have this from Tywin to Tyrion:

A Storm of Swords - Tyrion VI

It might serve, Tyrion had to concede, but the snake will not be happy. "Far be it from me to question your cunning, Father, but in your place I do believe I'd have let Robert Baratheon bloody his own hands."

Lord Tywin stared at him as if he had lost his wits. "You deserve that motley, then. We had come late to Robert's cause. It was necessary to demonstrate our loyalty. When I laid those bodies before the throne, no man could doubt that we had forsaken House Targaryen forever. And Robert's relief was palpable. As stupid as he was, even he knew that Rhaegar's children had to die if his throne was ever to be secure. Yet he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children." His father shrugged. "I grant you, it was done too brutally. Elia need not have been harmed at all, that was sheer folly. By herself she was nothing."

Now he could be lying, even to himself, but it does seem he is telling Tyrion the truth here.  He explains why he decided to have the children killed and earlier gives the detail of what Lorch did to Rhaenys.  It doesn't show a great insight into motherhood or close-knit family relationships but Tywin is Tywin and in a patriarchal society he might expect the realities of power and realpolitik considerations on Doran's part to override a grieving mother's desire for revenge.  I imagine it's how he would handle it unless the odds were in his favour.  And in the short term Elia is still useful as a hostage until Doran's loyalty is gained, grudgingly or not.

I’ve often thought about that passage, but I think Tywin’s lying, perhaps to himself, as you suggest.

His self-image, and the image he likes to project, is that he’s only as cruel as he has to be.  In reality, he’s often driven by spite, pettiness, and misogyny.  So, if it was not realpolitik that led him to have Elia killed, spite that she was chosen in place of Cersei would suffice, as Oberyn suggested to Tyrion.

It’s possible that he’s persuaded himself, after 16 years, that her death was not intended.

[the trees have eyes]

On 8/5/2023 at 12:04 PM, SeanF said:

I’ve often thought about that passage, but I think Tywin’s lying, perhaps to himself, as you suggest.

His self-image, and the image he likes to project, is that he’s only as cruel as he has to be.  In reality, he’s often driven by spite, pettiness, and misogyny.  So, if it was not realpolitik that led him to have Elia killed, spite that she was chosen in place of Cersei would suffice, as Oberyn suggested to Tyrion.

It’s possible that he’s persuaded himself, after 16 years, that her death was not intended.

It's possible but his intention is still unclear to me.  In a highly patriarchal society women, even noble women who have children, are really just a tradable commodity (and a very valuable one) in the marriage market (sorry, ladies! ). 

We see this with Tywin telling Cersei to her face, despite her being King-mother and Queen Regent that he will pack her off to Pyke or Highgarden for the political benefits her marriage will yield.  If he will treat his own daughter this way it's quite possible he expected Doran to marry Elia off to a Dornish Lord (one not in need of an heir given her health) for regional political benefit.

Plus there's the short term hostage value, a theme throughout the series, and we know Aerys effectively used Elia as a quasi-hostage to ensure Doran's loyalty so it should have loomed large as a consideration for Robert and Tywin.  E.G., despite the slaughter of The Red Wedding, Frey took many hostages including GreatJon Umber, a strange choice given his dangerous nature and his son's murder.  If The GreatJon can be kept alive in these circumstances - and he has no marriage value unless Frey wants a grandson on The Last Hearth - why would Elia need to be killed?

In the same conversation with Tyrion, Tywin talks of The Red Wedding:

A Storm of Swords - Tyrion VI

"It was to be an arrow, at Edmure Tully's wedding feast. The boy was too wary in the field. He kept his men in good order, and surrounded himself with outriders and bodyguards."

"So Lord Walder slew him under his own roof, at his own table?" Tyrion made a fist. "What of Lady Catelyn?"

"Slain as well, I'd say. A pair of wolfskins. Frey had intended to keep her captive, but perhaps something went awry."

Now you can read that as Elia Mk II with Catelyn's death all part of the plan, just not admitted to, but it makes more sense to me that she was intended to be kept as a hostage.  Edmure has clear hostage value until Riverrun is secured, Cat less so as the Tullies are effectively attainted and dispossessed so she has no real marriage value any more but it's possible she would have a ransom value to her remaining family, Lysa & Robert Arryn.  Out of simple spite, Walder might marry her to one of his brood, and although that is obviously of dubious practicality, not to say illegality, look at poor Lady Hornwood.

To be clear to anyone reading this I've no clear view of what Tywin intended, I just don't quite see how this supposed master of realpolitik intended to handle Elia.  Unless in the grand scheme of things she wasn't important enough to give much thought to.