George's stance on slavery

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

34 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

I Was worrying about my comments on Jon and SLynt for precisely that reason.

Funny thing is, a few years back a bunch of anti-starks accused my constantly of being anti-targ.

If it's any consolation, I didn't think you came off as anti-Stark lol. Or even anti-Jon, especially since you had already clarified your reasons for feeling torn over each execution.  

[frenin]

I find fans stance on the matter more odd that Martin's tbf. Especially the vocal advocate of master's rights.

I don't really believe there is a reason to correlate his fictional work with his political stance.

Nor have i followed him enough outside his work to grasp his political views really.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

I find fans stance on the matter more odd that Martin's tbf. Especially the vocal advocate of master's rights.

I don't really believe there is a reason to correlate his fictional work with his political stance.

Nor have i followed him enough outside his work to grasp his political views really.

Brett Devereaux points that there is a huge bias towards the elite, among students of history.  People tend to assume that they would be senators, knights, owners of slaves (but perfectly nice towards their slaves, of course), high lords and ladies, had they lived in the past.

Whereas, the statistical likelihood of this is extremely low.

It makes it terribly easy to empathise with Eastern masters, while just seeing the slaves as an amorphous mass.

Among some of the fandom, the crucifixion of 163 slave children is seen as nothing special.  Not worth troubling about.  But the crucifixion of 163 *masters* (ie real people), in retaliation, is seen as an atrocious act.

Edited April 3 by SeanF

[frenin]

15 hours ago, SeanF said:

Brett Devereaux points that there is a huge bias towards the elite, among students of history.  People tend to assume that they would be senators, knights, owners of slaves (but perfectly nice towards their slaves, of course), high lords and ladies, had they lived in the past.

Whereas, the statistical likelihood of this is extremely low.

It makes it terribly easy to empathise with Eastern masters, while just seeing the slaves as an amorphous mass.

Among some of the fandom, the crucifixion of 163 slave children is seen as nothing special.  Not worth troubling about.  But the crucifixion of 163 *masters* (ie real people), in retaliation, is seen as an atrocious act.

When discussing Mereen there hasn't been a shortage of people that straight up advocated for keeping slavery in the worst cases or a a "gradual reduction of it" (never giving a timeframe) because people would die and using violence means hypocrisy yadda yadda yadda.

There's some of what you're saying but i think that much like Martin and his over the top "realistic" depictions of the middle ages, most of us fans have taken the stance, consciously or unconsciously, that the most cruel and amoral the better while also adhering for certain planetos beliefs (Fans almost inmediate dislike for any bastard not named Jon for example).

Slavery just becomes the weirdest hill to play pretend being Machiavelli but...

 

 

Edited April 4 by frenin

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, frenin said:

When discussing Mereen there hasn't been a shortage of people that straight up advocated for keeping slavery in the worst cases or a a "gradual reduction of it" (never giving a timeframe) because people would die an using violence means hypocrisy yadda yadda yadda.

There's some of what you're saying but i think that much like Martin and his over the top "realistic" depictions of the middle ages, most of us fans have taken the stance, consciously or unconsciously, that the most cruel and amoral the better while also adhering for some to certain planetos beliefs (Fans almost inmediate dislike for any bastard not named Jon for example).

Slavery just becomes the weirdest hill to play pretend being Machiavelli but...

 

 

Yes, I've seen you challenging such people on Reddit.  But, you'll also get people arguing that Tywin is firm but fair, and arguing that the murder of Elia and her children was justified;  that Ser Kevan, Jaime and Tyrion are more or less decent people;  that Cersei is a feminist; that Catelyn is a monstrous step-mother, who started the War of the Five Kings;  that Arya is a psychopath who has to be put down like a rabid dog;  that the Freys, Boltons, and Bowen Marsh are unsung heroes;  that Janos Slynt is a martyr etc.

But yes, slavery is  strange hill to die on.

[Daeron the Daring]

On 4/3/2024 at 12:08 PM, Aldarion said:

It was also far more humane than many things that had followed it (just look at urban workforce during and after the Industrial Revolution!)

I mean, yes, the lowest life expectancy at birth, in Europe, was in 1860's Prussia. 

On 4/3/2024 at 12:08 PM, Aldarion said:

And the reason is simply that it is nothing like slavery, mostly due to one fundamental detail: serf was personally free. Serfdom was, in fact, a negotiated contract between the serf and the lord: usually however a village would negotiate as a collective, in order to have the weight behind it.

And from that followed a slew of other rights, such as a right to sue in court. What you (and most other people here, I suspect) probably don't know is that it was possible for a serf to sue his lord in a cour of law. Sure, it was unlikely to succeed, but it was technically possible - besides, try suing state in a court of law, you probably won't end well either unless you are a large corporation. And if suing at manorial court failed, it was (legally at least) possible for a serf to go to a higher court, such as land court and ultimately all the way to the king. Usually however, when a serf sued in the court, it was to sue his neighbour for minor offenses.

I mean, we can bounce off each other on technicalities, but I think what you mean to signify is that serfdom was a social contract between two sides, where both benefited from it (ideally, or "on paper"), unlike slavery. They were both, however, enslaved to the will of their owners/lords. Yes, they were allowed ownership of certain things, could seek justice, etc, but this was mainly the product of their situation, where they were tied to a piece of land, they were a part of the property their feudal overlords owned. Their situation developed from agricultural slavery to serfdom not because it was beneficial for them (altough it was), but because their owners benefited too from this transition of societal progress.

It ultimately comes down to the level of exploitation the serfs are subjected to, and, wether we like it or not, the drastic drop in their quality of life predated the industrial revolution. They were both technically and legally the closest thing to the various forms of slavery, and that's what I meant.

Edited April 4 by Daeron the Daring

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I mean, yes, the lowest life expectancy at birth, in Europe, was in 1860's Prussia. 

I mean, we can bounce off each other on technicalities, but I think what you mean to signify is that serfdom was a social contract between two sides, where both benefited from it (ideally, or "on paper"), unlike slavery. They were both, however, enslaved to the will of their owners/lords. Yes, they were allowed ownership of certain things, could seek justice, etc, but this was mainly the product of their situation, where they were tied to a piece of land, they were a part of the property their feudal overlords owned. Their situation developed from agricultural slavery to serfdom not because it was beneficial for them (altough it was), but because their owners benefited too from this transition of societal progress.

It ultimately comes down to the level of exploitation the serfs are subjected to, and, wether we like it or not, the drastic drop in their quality of life predated the industrial revolution. They were both technically and legally the closest thing to the various forms of slavery, and that's what I meant.

The population of the Western Roman empire fell sharply, with the plagues and wars of the Third Century.  And, while military victories might bring the occasional influx of slaves, taken as prisoners of war, there were no great conquests any longer.  That meant labour became valuable.  It was no longer feasible just to work fieldhands ot death, and then replace them with fresh slaves.  So, something similar to serfdom took the place of slavery.  

The same shortage of labour helped eliminate serfdom itself, in Western Europe, in the wake of the Black Death. 

Where labour is cheap, abundant, and easily replaceable, the condition of the labourers is going to be awful.

[House Cambodia]

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I mean, yes, the lowest life expectancy at birth, in Europe, was in 1860's Prussia. 

Engel's study of Manchester showed that life expectancy there in 1844 was 22, compared to the national average of 41. What's more, few workers were healthy enough to keep working after their 40th birthday.

At various times in various places the quality of life of slaves, serfs, industrial workers and so on varied. Some slaves in Ancient Greece and Rome were well-fed and treated, e.g. tutors to the children of the elite, but that didn't make the institution of slavery humane in itself.  Any non-free person is subject to the whims and vagaries of the person who has power over them. It's the systems of oppression, not the individuals, that Marx and Engels identified as needing to be swept away (and before we jump down that rabbit-hole, I'm not saying institutions that claimed to follow their economic philosophy fared any better).

Related to this specific thread, Dany's determination to "Break the Wheel" is a resolution to destroy the very institution of slavery. Until now, the Braavosi were the only group to aim and achieve that objective, and it was in far simpler circumstances to those Dany faces. Her idealistic commitment is admirable - and I'm sure fits with GRRM's ideals, along with any humane modern person. The issue is that it's an unprecedented revolutionary aim, she's an untrained child political philosopher, and she's going to face incredulity and treachery, and make mistakes, including well-intentioned compromises along the way.

tl;dr - it's easy to say "slavery bad"; it's HOW to change a deep-rooted system that's hard.

Edited April 4 by House Cambodia

[Alden Rothack]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

But yes, slavery is  strange hill to die on.

I recommend impalement for any and all pro-slavery people, the sooner the better

 

1 hour ago, House Cambodia said:

- it's easy to say "slavery bad"; it's HOW to change a deep-rooted system that's hard.

systems do not change because people want them to change, they change when the conditions no longer favour them and even then it takes a great deal of effort from many people, changing a country without the social framework in place gets you another form of tyranny at best, just look at the English and French Revolutions.

[House Cambodia]

1 minute ago, Alden Rothack said:

I recommend impalement for any and all pro-slavery people, the sooner the better

 

systems do not change because people want them to change, they change when the conditions no longer favour them and even then it takes a great deal of effort from many people, changing a country without the social framework in place gets you another form of tyranny at best, just look at the English and French Revolutions.

That's what I'm saying in my 3rd paragraph. Dany has a lovely idealism about her, but HOW to make it work is nigh-on impossible. Mistakes will be made.

[Alden Rothack]

Just now, House Cambodia said:

That's what I'm saying in my 3rd paragraph. Dany has a lovely idealism about her, but HOW to make it work is nigh-on impossible. Mistakes will be made.

But will it be comparable to the Emglish revolution (locals invite a return to the status quo) or the french (locals pick a figurehead who turns out to be much more dangerous than they expected) or even the Russian Revolution (bad is followed by much much worse)

[House Cambodia]

3 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

But will it be comparable to the Emglish revolution (locals invite a return to the status quo) or the french (locals pick a figurehead who turns out to be much more dangerous than they expected) or even the Russian Revolution (bad is followed by much much worse)

Read what I wrote - I'm not disputing any of that. I'm simply saying that Dany means well, she's a "good" person, but her naive ideals have got her in a nigh-on insolvable situation, a 'Meereenese Knot'.

[Alden Rothack]

1 minute ago, House Cambodia said:

Read what I wrote - I'm not disputing any of that. I'm simply saying that Dany means well, she's a "good" person, but her naive ideals have got her in a nigh-on insolvable situation, a 'Meereenese Knot'.

Dany is one person, her inexperience and moral failings aren't why she going to fail, they are however why she might not realise it until its too late for her to escape the shitstorm.

[House Cambodia]

Just now, Alden Rothack said:

Dany is one person, her inexperience and moral failings aren't why she going to fail, they are however why she might not realise it until its too late for her to escape the shitstorm.

What moral failings? Seems to me you're not bothering to read what I've been writing, so i'll leave it here.

[Alden Rothack]

4 minutes ago, House Cambodia said:

What moral failings? Seems to me you're not bothering to read what I've been writing, so i'll leave it here.

I read it, to repeat my point it doesn't matter who the one person is, it is simply that one person cannot change a system on their own

[SeanF]

To my mind, both the English and French revolutions had permanent beneficial impacts, despite the bloodshed.  Progress is at best, a two steps forward, one step back, affair.

That’s the best one can hope for in the East, that crushing the slaver coalition, outside Meereen, and revolt in Volantis, make slavery increasingly untenable in Western Essos.  But, it won’t magically end all forms of tyranny.

[Alden Rothack]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

To my mind, both the English and French revolutions had permanent beneficial impacts, despite the bloodshed.  Progress is at best, a two steps forward, one step back, affair.

That’s the best one can hope for in the East, that crushing the slaver coalition, outside Meereen, and revolt in Volantis, make slavery increasingly untenable in Western Essos.  But, it won’t magically end all forms of tyranny.

I'm pretty sure that was in spite of them not because of them, they were in most respects more like one step forward three steps back, in particular the rights of most people suffered rather than improved, though in France the law was much codified it did not actually improve things for most people.

[SeanF]

10 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

I'm pretty sure that was in spite of them not because of them, they were in most respects more like one step forward three steps back, in particular the rights of most people suffered rather than improved, though in France the law was much codified it did not actually improve things for most people.

Not during the Terror, but subsequently.  Things like religious toleration, an end to antiquated feudal privilege, decriminalisation of sodomy, Jewish emancipation, legislative elections (even if the franchise was limited), the notion that government is accountable to the people, were irreversible changes - and some of these things impacted on the rest of Europe.

[Alden Rothack]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Not during the Terror, but subsequently.  Things like religious toleration, an end to antiquated feudal privilege, decriminalisation of sodomy, Jewish emancipation, legislative elections (even if the franchise was limited), the notion that government is accountable to the people, were irreversible changes - and some of these things impacted on the rest of Europe.

At least some of them started before though, in fact it was the greater influence of the commons that led to the terror

[Daeron the Daring]

On 4/4/2024 at 6:16 PM, House Cambodia said:

At various times in various places the quality of life of slaves, serfs, industrial workers and so on varied. Some slaves in Ancient Greece and Rome were well-fed and treated, e.g. tutors to the children of the elite, but that didn't make the institution of slavery humane in itself.

Exactly my point. I mean, sure, serfdom, and later the abolishment of it was progress, but you can't and couldn't talk about an emancipated lower strata/working class until the implementation of worker's protection, safety regulations, social security, etc. 

I was rather pointing out the opposite: that they were all inhumane, regardless of the level of benevolence present at certain times. Some people sought divine right (initially) or race theory (later on) for justification, others simply expressed their right by simply doing it.

On 4/4/2024 at 6:16 PM, House Cambodia said:

Any non-free person is subject to the whims and vagaries of the person who has power over them.

I guess we can say freedom is a spectrum, then. 

On 4/4/2024 at 6:16 PM, House Cambodia said:

It's the systems of oppression, not the individuals, that Marx and Engels identified as needing to be swept away (and before we jump down that rabbit-hole, I'm not saying institutions that claimed to follow their economic philosophy fared any better).

I mean, yes (I might not see the full extent of your intended point here).

On 4/4/2024 at 6:16 PM, House Cambodia said:

tl;dr - it's easy to say "slavery bad"; it's HOW to change a deep-rooted system that's hard.

I mean if we follow Marx's vision of human history, which, according to him, is driven by material conditions, then slavery (as well as serfdom) wasn't abolished (regardless of time period) or severely pushed back by heroic figures for an attempt to elevate the standing of the lower strata. It was a natural consequence of the empowerement of certain groups of people, in the case of the industrial revolution, the bourgeoisie. 

I think we can agree that this isn't the reason why George's fantasy world will/might abolish slavery. If it happens, I think it will be most similar in nature to the national revolutions of the Springtime of Nations/Springtime of the Peoples, with the incorporation of aristocratic figures into the honest attempt of rebellion. Some reformists, others radicals, they are the central driving force of it, aka Daenerys.

On 4/4/2024 at 5:45 PM, SeanF said:

The population of the Western Roman empire fell sharply, with the plagues and wars of the Third Century.  And, while military victories might bring the occasional influx of slaves, taken as prisoners of war, there were no great conquests any longer.  That meant labour became valuable.  It was no longer feasible just to work fieldhands ot death, and then replace them with fresh slaves.  So, something similar to serfdom took the place of slavery.  

The same shortage of labour helped eliminate serfdom itself, in Western Europe, in the wake of the Black Death. 

Where labour is cheap, abundant, and easily replaceable, the condition of the labourers is going to be awful.

That was my argument as well. Labor devalued as it became so abundant, industrialization couldn't keep up with it, which is why most countries let people leave for wherever they wanted to go. At one point european countries realised it's no more optimal for them to let people leave. Similar realisations resulted in the birth of serfdom.

It doesn't mean it was heaven on earth, however, just like the industrial revolution wasn't one. Yet it is what gave birth to the lavish conditions some of us are allowed to keep (and many many more of us are not).

Edited April 5 by Daeron the Daring