George's stance on slavery

[Darth Sidious]

18 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, here's my point:

 

- The Braavosi pay back the Valiryans for the ships they "stole" while escaping. This is writen in such a way that makes me think the story considers it an honorable deed (which means George considers it an honorable deed). No slave would think that way tho. I mean, I never met a slave, but I don't think they would think they should pay back to their enslavers, if anything their enslavers owe them a bunch of money for all the free labour and such. Having the Braavosi pay the valiryans for a few ships is in my opinion one of the less believable parts of the story, and makes me think of the french forcing the hatians to pay the french a lot of money for freeing themselves.

 

- In Meeren a slave asks Dany to castrate a former slaver who raped another slave. Dany says the slave in question was the slaver's property, so it wasn't rape. However, you can't own a person and he definitely raped her, he should be punished. It's not like the nazis weren't punished after WW2 because what they did was legal... However, this could be considered character error rather than the text excusing the behaviour of the slvaer, that's why I bring the next point:

 

- 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?

Robb and Karstark. There were problems with that.  Karstark was an important contributor to the rebellion. It was dumb to kill him. Robb should have pardoned Karstark.  Jon made a bigger mistake when he killed Slynt. It was wrong ethically and even more wrong politically. Dany can execute the slavers because of their past crimes against humanity. She conquered them and not bound to accept their old laws. The wine bearing kids should be spared. And she did. The Meerenese lost. They have to accept Dany’s laws. She gets to set the rules. 

[CamiloRP]

6 hours ago, Gravity Grave said:

 

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.

First of all, the entire series is judging those events by modern day standars: using George's anti-war beliefs to judge a time in history when war was seen as heroic; using George's feminists views to judge a time in history when women were second class citizens; using George's views on class to judge a time in history when "nobles" were believed to be superior; etc.

Second of all, I'm not even using modern day moral standards, I'm using Dany's/Westeros standards.

And lastly, I'm not even using any morals really, I'm just noting a difference in the way George writes about Dany executing slavers vs Jon executing an insubordinate.

[Alden Rothack]

On 4/1/2024 at 6:39 AM, 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, here's my point:

 

- The Braavosi pay back the Valiryans for the ships they "stole" while escaping. This is writen in such a way that makes me think the story considers it an honorable deed (which means George considers it an honorable deed). No slave would think that way tho. I mean, I never met a slave, but I don't think they would think they should pay back to their enslavers, if anything their enslavers owe them a bunch of money for all the free labour and such. Having the Braavosi pay the valiryans for a few ships is in my opinion one of the less believable parts of the story, and makes me think of the french forcing the hatians to pay the french a lot of money for freeing themselves.

 

- In Meeren a slave asks Dany to castrate a former slaver who raped another slave. Dany says the slave in question was the slaver's property, so it wasn't rape. However, you can't own a person and he definitely raped her, he should be punished. It's not like the nazis weren't punished after WW2 because what they did was legal... However, this could be considered character error rather than the text excusing the behaviour of the slvaer, that's why I bring the next point:

 

- 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?

Karstark and Slynt knew very well that they were committing crimes that were punishable by death when they chose those actions, the slavers regardless of how deplorable we find them did not

[CamiloRP]

18 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

Karstark and Slynt knew very well that they were committing crimes that were punishable by death when they chose those actions, the slavers regardless of how deplorable we find them did not

I don't think Janos' was a "crime punishable by death", at least not obviously.

Besides, that's preciselly the point I'm making

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said:

Karstark and Slynt knew very well that they were committing crimes that were punishable by death when they chose those actions, the slavers regardless of how deplorable we find them did not

The slavers would have known well enough what the slaves would do to them, if they lost control.  They certainly understand that they are doing harm to others - as Kraznys and Xaro make plain, in their discussions with Dany.

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

Robb and Karstark. There were problems with that.  Karstark was an important contributor to the rebellion. It was dumb to kill him. Robb should have pardoned Karstark.  Jon made a bigger mistake when he killed Slynt. It was wrong ethically and even more wrong politically. Dany can execute the slavers because of their past crimes against humanity. She conquered them and not bound to accept their old laws. The wine bearing kids should be spared. And she did. The Meerenese lost. They have to accept Dany’s laws. She gets to set the rules. 

Karstark murdered prisoners, and murdered Tully soldiers.  He had earned death.

Slynt repeatedly defied a reasonable order, given by his commander.  At the Wall, that earns an execution.

Mainly, Dany does not punish the Meereenese elite for slaving, or rape, prior to her arrival.  She gives an amnesty for crimes committed by masters and slaves.

The exception is the 163 elite, crucified in retaliation for the crucifixion of 163 children, which demonstrates that the life of a Great Master is worth the same as the life of a slave child.

[House Cambodia]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

First of all, the entire series is judging those events by modern day standars: using George's anti-war beliefs to judge a time in history when war was seen as heroic; using George's feminists views to judge a time in history when women were second class citizens; using George's views on class to judge a time in history when "nobles" were believed to be superior; etc.

 

Quote

The slavers would have known well enough what the slaves would do to them, if they lost control.  They certainly understand that they are doing harm to others - as Kraznys and Xaro make plain, in their discussions with Dany.

What George understands is that these medieval social injustices are deeply systemic. Slavers knew as Sean states, yet they saw themselves as upholding the Natural Order, the alternative being full-on bloody anarchy, as turned out in Astapor under the Cleons.

Similarly, in heroic society, warriors have no purpose or value in life if they are not killing - that's brought out well in literature such as Beowulf. The Great Chain of Being (and Caste System in India) insist class hierarchy is Divinely Ordained, same with Patriarchy.

Brave and subversive individuals as exemplified by Dany in this narrative are challenging global assumptions - there are no rules to guide them and in her case she's a child making it up as she goes along, guided by older people some of whom are wise up to a point, but all are constrained by the paradigms of their time and society.

Over in Westeros, characters are driven by duty but find themselves in the classic dilemma outlined in the Bhagavad Gita - what do you do when there is a conflict of duties?

What George does so well is make it clear (to me anyway) that there are no easy solutions or even easy compromises. There's no question that George is 'against slavery', but how does he deal with it, narratively-speaking? He admits himself it turned out trickier than he anticipated, and is well-encapsulated by the phrase 'The Meereenese Knot'. This very issue has made me sympathise with him in delaying the completion of TWOW so long. There just isn't a solution that will satisfy the majority of the fanbase.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

 

What George does so well is make it clear (to me anyway) that there are no easy solutions or even easy compromises. There's no question that George is 'against slavery', but how does he deal with it, narratively-speaking? He admits himself it turned out trickier than he anticipated, and is well-encapsulated by the phrase 'The Meereenese Knot'. This very issue has made me sympathise with him in delaying the completion of TWOW so long. There just isn't a solution that will satisfy the majority of the fanbase.

Agreed.

There is no government in real life that has done a truly good job at ending slavery.

You can have the planters replaced by local tyrants - like Dessalines in Haiti.  You can have the slaves freed, but their ex-masters retaining great power, as in the post-Bellum South, Jamaica, and Brazil.

Ideally, masters should be required to make restitution to their slaves - but only Thaddeus Steven’s and a small number of radicals could conceive of such a thing.

 

[Mithras]

19 hours ago, SeanF said:

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

Abner Marsh lived at a time where most of the civilized world had already abolished slavery. Essos with all its shallow, anachronistic worldbuilding and moustache twirling villains do not equal to the US in 1850s. If GRRM wants to make a direct connection between the two instances, than I would say his history minor is terribly minor.

[Alden Rothack]

5 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

I don't think Janos' was a "crime punishable by death", at least not obviously.

Besides, that's preciselly the point I'm making

It is under those circumstances and he knew that

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

The slavers would have known well enough what the slaves would do to them, if they lost control.  They certainly understand that they are doing harm to others - as Kraznys and Xaro make plain, in their discussions with Dany.

of course they did but that doesn't make the situations comparable

slave revolts may be just but they are absolutely not legal.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Mithras said:

Abner Marsh lived at a time where most of the civilized world had already abolished slavery. Essos with all its shallow, anachronistic worldbuilding and moustache twirling villains do not equal to the US in 1850s. If GRRM wants to make a direct connection between the two instances, than I would say his history minor is terribly minor.

I think the slavers of Astapor and Yunkai are cartoonishly degenerate and evil, like Jabba the Hutt.

But there’s rather more depth to those of Meereen, and Xaro.  They’re more intelligently evil.

Edited April 2 by SeanF

[kissdbyfire]

On 4/1/2024 at 2:39 AM, 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.

I think it’s a huge misunderstanding to take things the author has characters say to expose certain things, ideas, actions, ideologies, etc., as personal endorsements. 
For instance, in your first example Martin may be not only exposing the evils of slavery indirectly but also showing the Braavosi as morally superior to the slavers. Sort of applying Michelle Obama’s philosophy of “when they go low we go high”. I can’t tell how realistic it is here though; I very much doubt I would have it in me to be so magnanimous to people who had previously enslaved me.
 

It’s been forever since I’ve read the books, but doesn’t the 2nd example happen when Dany was struggling to achieve peace in Meereen? And we know Dany is very much against slavery. So here he is just showing how hard it is to rule, and how sometimes rulers must compromise even when said compromise goes against every thing they believe in. 

 

The third example is similar. Dany doesn’t like the guy, definitely doesn’t want to marry him, but sees it as her obligation to do so. Robb’s execution of Karstark and Jon’s execution of Slynt are very clearly the law of the land being applied, whereas what Dany’s advisers want is vengeance and maybe even to create chaos. 
But again, in all these instances I think it’s a mistake to assume that b/c a character says or does something, it means the author endorses it. Following this logic, then Martin endorses the atrocities Tywin does and say, or Ramsay or any other evil villain. 

 

[CamiloRP]

4 hours ago, Alden Rothack said:

It is under those circumstances and he knew that

Jon thinks baout sending him to the ice cells, or tying him to his horse. It was not something that necessarilly demanded for death. Also, Janos thinks Jon is bluffing when he first says he'll hang him, and immmidiatly retracts when he realizes he's not, so he didn't think his "crime" was punishable by death. Also, Thorne and Marsh didn't think his "crime" was punishable by death.

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think it’s a huge misunderstanding to take things the author has characters say to expose certain things, ideas, actions, ideologies, etc., as personal endorsements. 
For instance, in your first example Martin may be not only exposing the evils of slavery indirectly but also showing the Braavosi as morally superior to the slavers. Sort of applying Michelle Obama’s philosophy of “when they go low we go high”. I can’t tell how realistic it is here though; I very much doubt I would have it in me to be so magnanimous to people who had previously enslaved me.

This is my main problem with it tho, George seems to think it makes them morally superior, but I can't think of no person that after being enslaved, would pay back their former masters for property they took whne freeing themselves, if anything the ships taken were the first payment Valirya made for their work. Paying them back is recognizing the validity of their enslavement.

[kissdbyfire]

14 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

This is my main problem with it tho, George seems to think it makes them morally superior, but I can't think of no person that after being enslaved, would pay back their former masters for property they took whne freeing themselves, if anything the ships taken were the first payment Valirya made for their work. Paying them back is recognizing the validity of their enslavement.

Disagreeing is fine, I just don't understand how any of it can be seen as some type of endorsement, it very clearly isn't IMO.

[kissdbyfire]

19 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Jon thinks baout sending him to the ice cells, or tying him to his horse. It was not something that necessarilly demanded for death. Also, Janos thinks Jon is bluffing when he first says he'll hang him, and immmidiatly retracts when he realizes he's not, so he didn't think his "crime" was punishable by death. Also, Thorne and Marsh didn't think his "crime" was punishable by death.

It didn't justify execution when they had their first exchange on the topic, but by the time Jon finally executes Slynt it was 100% warranted. In fact, it was warranted even before that point. 

[CamiloRP]

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Disagreeing is fine, I just don't understand how any of it can be seen as some type of endorsement, it very clearly isn't IMO.

I don't think he endorses slavery or anything, but I think no slave would act as George descrived in that part of the book, to me it speaks to George not fully realizing how abhorrent slavery is. I mean, he's  awhite guy from a first world nation, the subject just doesn't affect him the same way it does others. And this blindspot regarding slavery to me explains why his "anti-warness" prevails even in situations in which he would be in favor of violence, like in mereen.

[CamiloRP]

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It didn't justify execution when they had their first exchange on the topic, but by the time Jon finally executes Slynt it was 100% warranted. In fact, it was warranted even before that point. 

I'm not comenting on if tis warranted or not tho. I just think the execution of the slavers is way more warranted, while the text seems to treat it as if Janos' execution is the more just one.

[Alden Rothack]

3 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

Jon thinks baout sending him to the ice cells, or tying him to his horse. It was not something that necessarilly demanded for death. Also, Janos thinks Jon is bluffing when he first says he'll hang him, and immmidiatly retracts when he realizes he's not, so he didn't think his "crime" was punishable by death. Also, Thorne and Marsh didn't think his "crime" was punishable by death.

thinking he won't do it and not wanting him to are not the same thing as it being the correct punishment

Also he doesn't retract anything, he had several chances to obey orders and he didn't, nor did he say that he would do so if spared

As for Thorne and Marsh I wouldn't take them as evidence of anything since they were perfectly willing to commit an even worse crime themselves.

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said:

thinking he won't do it and not wanting him to are not the same thing as it being the correct punishment

No... but thinking "I could not execute him" means he could've not executed him...

 

Quote

Also he doesn't retract anything, he had several chances to obey orders and he didn't, nor did he say that he would do so if spared

He does tho, in the very end, when it's too late, which ofcourse it is, but it shows he never thought it was a real posivility.

 

Quote

As for Thorne and Marsh I wouldn't take them as evidence of anything since they were perfectly willing to commit an even worse crime themselves.

As far as I know Thorne didn't commit any crime, and it doesn't matter what Marsh does later, what we are arguing about is if it was obvious Janos thougth his actions were punishable by death, which him, Marsh and Thorne clearly thought they didn't, and Jon thought they weren't necessarily punishable by death.