George's stance on slavery

[Daeron the Daring]

Every kind of labor is exploited to a degree. It's how profit becomes reality.

At a certain point, in certain places, serfs were treated worse than slaves were in other times, at other places. Serfdom is sugarcoated slavery anyway. Both social classes were property, with various levels of independence troughout history.

Both were enforced trough the imbalance of power favoring the wealthy. It was a natural consequence of an inequal society that didn't have the means to fight against it.

That being said, a westerosi serf is generally significantly better off than a slave of Slaver's Bay, hence why we perceive Daenerys' actions as an attempt of emancipation. George clearly does intend to show that, and I think the struggles of the remodeled slaveless society are supposed to resemble how our modern society engages/engaged in exploitation of labor. The labor force is ultimately (obviously) better off without institutionalised opression, but that does come with it's own problems, because the inequality in between working class conditions is so great that the more unfortunate are conditioned into throwing themselves into the grinder we can call modern slavery. The ex-slaves of Slaver's Bay trying to sell themselves back into slavery is similar to this.

'Our' struggle resulted in the wealthy realising they can work with implemented social security and worldwide poverty.

George in no way tries to portray feudalism/slavery in a romantic fashion. But he's right to portray serfdom/slavery as natural conclusions of the societal limits of his fiction. It's what life is like in Georgeworld, because it's what life was like in real life. And no, slavery wasn't the best people of that age could do, it's what they were allowed to do, and so they did.

Edited April 1 by Daeron the Daring

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

 

 

- Killing people is wrong, obviously, and the story often makes a point that executions aren't justice, but not all executions are presented equally in the text. Robb executing Karstark, or Jon executing Slynt aren't portrayed as misdeeds by the story, you can even make the argument that both executions are protrayed as the right move, then there's Dnay in Slaver's Bay. What she has to do is make peace with the slavers, not only that but marry one of them. These are people who treat people like cattle, like property, people who frequently rape, murder and torture other humans, but Dany is protrayed as wise and good for making peace with them and marrying Hizdar, while the two characters who advice executing the slavers are the bloodthisty Skahas and Daario. So again, it seems like the text (and therefore George) approves Dany making peace with so heineous people. And yes, I get it, slavery was legal when they did those things, but the point still stands, slavery is inherently wrong, no matter the law, is fundamentally unjust and heinous, so the law shouldn't matter in this case. Would any of you think less of Dnay if she would've executed all of the slavers? I wouldn't.

 

Anyway, what do you think?

Dany is not a professional soldier, whereas Robb, Stannis, Jon are.  When she orders killings, her feelings are often running high, and quite often she'll agonise, subsequently, over whether she made the right choice.

Robb, Stannis, Jon are far more dispassionate about killing, so to the reader, it comes over as much less of a big deal.  Killing is just the way things are, a soldier's duty.   And, much of the killing that is ordered by Robb and Stannis takes place off stage.  Robb's soldiers hang peasant women, burn towns and villages, pillage crops and livestock, and rape widely.  Roose Bolton turns Harrenhall into a concentration camp, but because he's a traitor, Robb gets exonerated from Roose's actions.  The peasants are quite clear, through Arya's POV, that wolves are almost as bad as lions, but we never get to see the Northern army rolling up at some luckless village, the way we get to see the Dothraki at work in Lhazar.  We never get to see a POV where Robb orders the hanging of young women, whereas we do get Dany's POV when she recalls crucifying the 163 Great Masters.

Likewise Stannis, who certainly does well to prevent rape of prisoners, and protect Asha.  Yet, Tyrion sees that his soldiers are burning villages as they march through the Kingswood;  he employs men who torture young women (Ser Clayton Suggs likes to join in), but again, it's all taking place off stage.  The one and only time we get to see Stannis do something horrible is when he has the four soldiers burned.  Even then, it is ususally defended as harsh, but necessary, to maintain discipline.  

So, Daenerys can seem less justified when she kills, because of her emotional state, her habit of beating herself up over the decisions she's made, and because we see them upfront.  Whereas killing that is dispassionate, and which takes place off stage, seems less bad.  But, one ought not really to see much ethical distinction between these forms of killing.

[Son of Man]

There is a passage in Fevre Dream where the main character says something like slavery must end even if it means using fire and blood to do so.  That should tell you what George thinks.  Slavery is so bad that it is one of the things which justifies war and bloodshed to stop.  That is the reason why Dany is a hero even if she chooses to drop fire on the slave masters. 

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Son of Man said:

There is a passage in Fevre Dream where the main character says something like slavery must end even if it means using fire and blood to do so.  That should tell you what George thinks.  Slavery is so bad that it is one of the things which justifies war and bloodshed to stop.  That is the reason why Dany is a hero even if she chooses to drop fire on the slave masters. 

It’s hard to think that Abner Marsh was not speaking for the author.

[Son of Man]

17 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It’s hard to think that Abner Marsh was not speaking for the author.

It is far easier and more rational to support a war against slavery than it is to accept shedding blood to avenge a family. 

[Son of Man]

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It’s hard to think that Abner Marsh was not speaking for the author.

 

9 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

It is far easier and more rational to support a war against slavery than it is to accept shedding blood to avenge a family. 

I think you get where I'm going SeanF.  I am saying the battle against the slave masters is much easier to justify than it is to do the same for the people back in Westeros killing people for revenge.

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

 

I think you get where I'm going SeanF.  I am saying the battle against the slave masters is much easier to justify than it is to do the same for the people back in Westeros killing people for revenge.

I think it is the war with the most just cause, along with Jon/Stannis’ war against the Boltons, of any that we see in this tale.

Everyone else is fighting for gain/revenge.

That’s not to say Dany is a pure altruist.  She does get an army and a city state out of it, but there’s no such thing as a purely altruistic leader in this tale.

[CamiloRP]

7 hours ago, House Cambodia said:

Fair point and I apologise.  My unfair comment was in response to something you wrote you now say was simplistic and you didn't mean, so it threw me somewhat.

it's cool

[CamiloRP]

7 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

No ome would complain..bar the massive states that rely onnslavery and the other slaver citybstates nearby whonare quite powerful...she didnt kill them all when she took thd city so she has opted agaisnt a fresh start based on a massacre.

But my point isn't "what should Dany do now", it's "does George think it's right to execute the slavers?", If he did, he could have Dany dwell on her not executing them when she took the city, or other more simpathetic characters tell her something similar.
The massive states that rely on slavery are already complaining, except for Astapor, ofcourse, because she killed them all.

 

Quote

He could have but that would be undermining his authority. Hes a teen boy incharge of a mininforiegn legion many former criminals he cant afford to lose authority

Ofcourse, I get why he killed him, it's just a foil: the text seems to think it's wrong to execute slavers but not to execute insubordinates.

 

Edited April 1 by CamiloRP

[CamiloRP]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Twain's quote applies very well to the use of violence against the slave lords of Essos, IMHO.

"THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”

Never read this, it's amazing.

 

Quote

I should add that for some of the fandom, the Terror inflicted on the slave owning class makes them "shudder" far more than the Terror inflicted by the slave owning class.

Yes, and somethimes for George aswell. The conclusion I come up with is the following: George is obviously anti-war, he's also anti-slvery, but he doesn't feel as strongly about that, sometimes he doesn't realize how awful that is. I'm not saying he's pro slavery in any way, just that being anti-war is a big part of him, and being anti-slavery may not be something he thinks too much about. Not thinking too much about slavery leads him to write weird, unbelieveable bits in which the former slaves pay back their former masters for property they stole, instead of demanding their former masters to pay them for all the work they did. And being more anti-war than anti-slavery leads him to oppose a violent solution to slavery, even tho it would be considered justice by his world's morality and by a lot of people in this world too, and it would be one of the most just acts in the series.

[CamiloRP]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Dany is not a professional soldier, whereas Robb, Stannis, Jon are.  When she orders killings, her feelings are often running high, and quite often she'll agonise, subsequently, over whether she made the right choice.

Robb, Stannis, Jon are far more dispassionate about killing, so to the reader, it comes over as much less of a big deal.  Killing is just the way things are, a soldier's duty.   And, much of the killing that is ordered by Robb and Stannis takes place off stage.  Robb's soldiers hang peasant women, burn towns and villages, pillage crops and livestock, and rape widely.  Roose Bolton turns Harrenhall into a concentration camp, but because he's a traitor, Robb gets exonerated from Roose's actions.  The peasants are quite clear, through Arya's POV, that wolves are almost as bad as lions, but we never get to see the Northern army rolling up at some luckless village, the way we get to see the Dothraki at work in Lhazar.  We never get to see a POV where Robb orders the hanging of young women, whereas we do get Dany's POV when she recalls crucifying the 163 Great Masters.

Likewise Stannis, who certainly does well to prevent rape of prisoners, and protect Asha.  Yet, Tyrion sees that his soldiers are burning villages as they march through the Kingswood;  he employs men who torture young women (Ser Clayton Suggs likes to join in), but again, it's all taking place off stage.  The one and only time we get to see Stannis do something horrible is when he has the four soldiers burned.  Even then, it is ususally defended as harsh, but necessary, to maintain discipline.  

So, Daenerys can seem less justified when she kills, because of her emotional state, her habit of beating herself up over the decisions she's made, and because we see them upfront.  Whereas killing that is dispassionate, and which takes place off stage, seems less bad.  But, one ought not really to see much ethical distinction between these forms of killing.

Yes, but when Jon executes Slynt, the only one who criticizes that decisition is Thorne, an asshole we are clearly supposed to dislike, and Bowen Marsh panics; while Stannis nods in approval.

On the other hand, Dany killing the slavers is supported by Daario and the Shavepate.

[CamiloRP]

2 hours ago, Son of Man said:

There is a passage in Fevre Dream where the main character says something like slavery must end even if it means using fire and blood to do so.  That should tell you what George thinks.  Slavery is so bad that it is one of the things which justifies war and bloodshed to stop.  That is the reason why Dany is a hero even if she chooses to drop fire on the slave masters. 

I had forgotten about that! that's a great point.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Never read this, it's amazing.

 

Yes, and somethimes for George aswell. The conclusion I come up with is the following: George is obviously anti-war, he's also anti-slvery, but he doesn't feel as strongly about that, sometimes he doesn't realize how awful that is. I'm not saying he's pro slavery in any way, just that being anti-war is a big part of him, and being anti-slavery may not be something he thinks too much about. Not thinking too much about slavery leads him to write weird, unbelieveable bits in which the former slaves pay back their former masters for property they stole, instead of demanding their former masters to pay them for all the work they did. And being more anti-war than anti-slavery leads him to oppose a violent solution to slavery, even tho it would be considered justice by his world's morality and by a lot of people in this world too, and it would be one of the most just acts in the series.

I find that plausible.  But if the argument from the author is that it is immoral to use violence to oppose slavery, it must follow that every other war in the tale is immoral.  It was immoral to use violence to defy Aerys.  It was immoral to use violence to suppress the Greyjoy revolt.  It is immoral for Jon and Stannis to fight the Boltons.   It is immoral for Robb to lead an army South.

The argument that “thou shalt not kill” must apply to everyone.

It is an argument that I reject.

 

 

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I think it is the war with the most just cause, along with Jon/Stannis’ war against the Boltons, of any that we see in this tale.

Everyone else is fighting for gain/revenge.

That’s not to say Dany is a pure altruist.  She does get an army and a city state out of it, but there’s no such thing as a purely altruistic leader in this tale.

I wouldn't compare this with the war against the Boltons tho. Stannis just wants to be king and Jon wants to avenge Robb and save Arya. They don't know about what a terrible lord Roose is.

[CamiloRP]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

I find that plausible.  But if the argument from the author is that it is immoral to use violence to oppose slavery, it must follow that every other war in the tale is immoral.  It was immoral to use violence to defy Aerys.  It was immoral to use violence to suppress the Greyjoy revolt.  It is immoral for Jon and Stannis to fight the Boltons.   It is immoral for Robb to lead an army South.

The argument that “thou shalt not kill” must apply to everyone.

It is an argument that I reject.

 

 

I reject it too, and I don't think he applies it in every other instance, I think sometimes he just slips.

[House Cambodia]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

unbelieveable bits in which the former slaves pay back their former masters for property they stole, instead of demanding their former masters to pay them for all the work they did.

In Britain, the way the government abolished slavery was to BUY all the slaves from their owners, i.e. generously compensate the owners. It almost bankrupt the nation, but that was deemed the right and fair way to deal with the matter at the time. George does well to avoid imposing 21st century solutions to his medieval world.

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, House Cambodia said:

In Britain, the way the government abolished slavery was to BUY all the slaves from their owners, i.e. generously compensate the owners. It almost bankrupt the nation, but that was deemed the right and fair way to deal with the matter at the time. George does well to avoid imposing 21st century solutions to his medieval world.

But the people who did this weren't slaves. In Haiti, the first country to abolish slavery, every single slaver died.

[sifth]

George's stance on slavery. Let's see, he's only portrayed every slaver in the series as an evil monster. I really don't think there's anything more to think about aside from that.

[James West]

There is no gray area in slavery.  It is a big part of the A Song of Ice and Fire but nowhere does it say it's ok.  If Martin was willing to put on a uniform to fight the Nazis he would have done the same to fight slavery. 

If the slave had a choice then it's not really slavery.  A servant who may not receive pay but has the freedom to leave is not a slave.  Slavery is the ownership of another person and it deprives that person of the right to choose whether to serve or to leave.

[Gravity Grave]

17 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

I find the politics of slavery in ASOIAF confusing in a way in which they make me think George is not so fiercily against it, which is incredibly weird because I know he's an incredibly progressive hippie.

 

I'm not in any way claiming he's in favor of slavery, not at all, however in some instances I think the text has a weird viewpoint in which it excuses some parts of slavery.

 

Anyway, what do you think?

 

I think if you're judging the characters and events in this series by present day moral standards then these books aren't for you.