A Daenerys Character Arc Reread II

[Sevumar]

The fact that he was deep in debt that he got himself into doesn't make me at all sympathetic to his decision to traffick in human beings. It is simply inexcusable.

I didn't offer the debt situation as an excuse, but as an extenuating circumstance. The fact that this behavior was chosen and attempted out of desperation shows that it's outside his normal range of actions. He was not the sole author of his debt, and he'd made attempts to ease the situation with his wife's cooperation and she refused to take part. These things all contributed to bad behavior, but in my book it's not the same as waking up in the morning and deciding it's a good day to do some slavin'.

With Jorah we have an ongoing pattern of behavior. First, he sells slaves (and I don't think its clear that he only did it once before getting caught, either). Then, he advises to Drogo that he sell children into brothels. Then, he advises Dany to purchase Unsullied for her cause. We see a clear pattern here.

There are two different things going on here. The selling of slaves is not the same as taking advantage of slave labor or giving Khal Drogo advice on what to do to maximize his slaving profits. One represents being the primary actor involved in dealing slaves, the other two are still bad things to participate in, but do not involve as much direct guilt or responsibility as the actual selling of slaves. There's no pattern. What I see is a man who doesn't consciously deal in slaves, but isn't overly bothered by the existence of slavery or the occasional interaction with it. It's worth noting that until this point in the story, Dany's not either.

I think its rather apt. This is what Dany needed to do. Losing Jorah would damage her cause, he frequently gave her good advice. But keeping such an evil counselor close (and the betrayal we see at the end of this book is consistent with the pattern of behavior we see) can never end well.

I find Biblical "wisdom" to be dubious at best, and often incompatible with moral behavior. There are some good statements and thoughts in the Bible, but it's not a useful authority for guiding moral behavior on the whole. I don't think she should have dismissed him, as his good contributions (saving her life more than once, good advice on the whole) far outweigh his negatives. Like you said, I don't think we'll agree on this, but I don't put a ton of emphasis on his reaction to slavery.

That is why this is called the banality of evil. Its not motivated by malice or anything of the sort. The only thing that keeps me from whole-heartedly lumping Jorah into that category is that he isn't simply following orders that violate his moral beliefs, but actually advocating for atrocity.

In a lot of situations, Jorah hasn't had the luxury of applying a high code of moral beliefs. He's had to do what's necessary to survive, and he's extremely practical. That's a hard habit to shake. It's not an excuse, but it is a way of understanding what drives him. He's not "advocating for atrocity". The atrocity has already happened, he's suggesting that the better option for Dany is to take advantage of it rather than endanger herself.

[mediocre cheese]

This is the second dany thread I've read that Nazism came up in as many days. Something about the girl brings ups a sense of volkischness eh?

You should read up on Eichmann. Interesting fellow. That is why this is called the banality of evil. Its not motivated by malice or anything of the sort. The only thing that keeps me from whole-heartedly lumping Jorah into that category is that he isn't simply following orders that violate his moral beliefs, but actually advocating for atrocity.

This is OT, but contra what heidegger's mistress said, Eichmann was very much motivated by ideological reasons. Eichmann was a fanatical nazi, who organized the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people because he believed they deserved to be exterminated.

Eichmann did more than protest Hitler’s order. According to Veesenmayer, Eichmann decided that “to the extent that further deportations of Jews from Budapest would be agreed to, the attempt shall be made to carry them out as suddenly and as speedily as possible so that those Jews eligible for emigration would have been deported before the formalities had been concluded.” So Eichmann not only opposed Hitler’s order, he planned to block its implementation. Jews eligible for emigration would already have been deported to gas chambers when emigration negotiations were completed.

This is the man whom Miss Arendt sketches as a law-abiding citizen, loyal, out of conscience, to Hitler, but free of hatred for Jews. But the real Eichmann was a killer, ready to take the initiative even against Hitler’s order, so that no Jews should live.

Let it be borne in mind that Eichmann was really trying to defend himself in the Jerusalem Court. Miss Arendt might have considered this when she wrote that: “his was obviously also no case of insane hatred of Jews, of fanatical anti-Semitism or indoctrination of any kind.” (p. 23)Her sole evidence for this is what Eichmann said before his Jewish accusers. Did Miss Arendt think that if Eichmann hated Jews he was going to tell it to the Jewish court?...Miss Arendt’s account of Eichmann’s early years in the Nazi movement casts doubt on her notion that Eichmann “did not enter the Party out of conviction. . .” In 1934, Eichmann applied successfully for a job in Himmler’s S.D. The activities of the S.D. were top secret. How could this Nazi organization draw Eichmann, a recent recruit, into its top secret operations if he showed no signs of political convictions?

Link

Arendt's account of the eichmann trial was based almost entirely on eichmann's defense, and her writings on the subject are extremely ugly and racist. The fact that eichmann was not a physically remarkable person led her down a whole psychological theorum that eichmann was a "joiner" who had killed hundreds of thousands so he could be a major rather than a captain. In fact nothing could be further from the truth, he joined the nazi party in 1932, when it was an illegal organization in Austria (so not out of careerism) and applied to join the SS. He said this in 1945: "I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction." Eichmann was a psychopathic nazi who killed out of malice and ideological conviction. Arendt's account was rightly protested at the time by actual holocaust historians, and its sad that her phrases and wrongheaded (and frankly minimizing and apologist) views of him have seeped into the public lexicon.

Edit:

To bring this back to asioaf, eichmann is less jorah mormont, and more gregor clegane, who receives a vile order (to kill baby aegon) and than carries it out above and beyond what was ordered.

[brashcandy]

I didn't offer the debt situation as an excuse, but as an extenuating circumstance. The fact that this behavior was chosen and attempted out of desperation shows that it's outside his normal range of actions. He was not the sole author of his debt, and he'd made attempts to ease the situation with his wife's cooperation and she refused to take part. These things all contributed to bad behavior, but in my book it's not the same as waking up in the morning and deciding it's a good day to do some slavin'.

Sevumar, do you think the Astaphori woke up one day and decided to start slaving, or did they have good reasons too? We don't know these men - maybe crazy ole Kraznys had a greedy wife back at his mansion who was "forcing" him to continue making those Unsullied. I just think it's incredibly absurd to try to find a good reason for someone to engage in something as abhorrent as slavery, especially coming from a culture where it is outlawed and despised.

There are two different things going on here. The selling of slaves is not the same as taking advantage of slave labor or giving Khal Drogo advice on what to do to maximize his slaving profits. One represents being the primary actor involved in dealing slaves, the other two are still bad things to participate in, but do not involve as much direct guilt or responsibility as the actual selling of slaves. There's no pattern. What I see is a man who doesn't consciously deal in slaves, but isn't overly bothered by the existence of slavery or the occasional interaction with it. It's worth noting that until this point in the story, Dany's not either.

The reason why Jorah can so callously advise Drogo on what to do with those slaves is because he himself has been involved in the trade before. His pattern of behaviour culminates in this advice to Drogo and later, Daenerys. When you take advantage of slave labour you may as well be selling them, and this is why Daenerys is so conflicted. She at least later on gave the Unsullied the option of leaving her.

In a lot of situations, Jorah hasn't had the luxury of applying a high code of moral beliefs. He's had to do what's necessary to survive, and he's extremely practical. That's a hard habit to shake. It's not an excuse, but it is a way of understanding what drives him. He's not "advocating for atrocity". The atrocity has already happened, he's suggesting that the better option for Dany is to take advantage of it rather than endanger herself.

Which is ultimately terrible advice. It's like a man going into a brothel - oh wait, let's just use Tyrion Lannister when he sleeps with that slave prostitute. Sure, her abuse has already happened, but he is still contributing directly to her abuse by sleeping with her, and letting her masters continue to profit off her body. Taking advantage of an atrocity because it's already happened is absolutely reprehensible.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Wait, what?

Her first order to them is to kill all the people who create Unsullied (and otherwise run the slave trade is Astapor). Granted she uses their martial prowess, but she uses it to abolish slavery and end the creation of Unsullied. There was realistically no other way of doing this but to buy the Unsullied. Surely doing whats necessary to end the creation of Unsullied is more moral than walking away and feeling superior?

I think Alexia is commenting that neither choice is moral. It's not moral to use the unsullied to kill slavers and "liberate" the city (since many innocents will die, and you're doing something dishonorable by going back on your word). It's also obviously morally abhorrent to buy any Unsullied. At least going away is morally neutral.

I don't know that I agree with her completely, but it's really a morally grey action when you consider what actually happens to Astapor as a result of Dany's actions. I tend to think that if Dany ultimately brings Freedom to Essos then her decision here will be looked upon as correct, both in a moral sense and in a "winner tells the story" sense. At least by me since I tend to be rather utilitarian. No matter how many slavers die, the prevention of future death/torture/dehumanization is worth it. But again, only if it sticks. If it doesn't, and all of Slaver's Bay returns to the whip, then Dany's actions will have led to the death of many innocents in the name of no real change. I really vacillate on this (which maybe you'll see me do next chapter summary) because half of me is like "DRACARYS DRACARYS, FREEDOM, FREEDOM!!!" and the other half is like "But what if it doens't work in the end? What was the point?? And Meereen sucks so much, King Cleos butchers everyone omgomgomg... everyone's going to be a slave again... ahhhh." So basically I have the same doubts/regrets I think Dany has when she thinks back on what's happened...

[Sevumar]

Sevumar, do you think the Astaphori woke up one day and decided to start slaving, or did they have good reasons too? We don't know these men - maybe crazy ole Kraznys had a greedy wife back at his mansion who was "forcing" him to continue making those Unsullied. I just think it's incredibly absurd to try to find a good reason for someone to engage in something as abhorrent as slavery, especially coming from a culture where it is outlawed and despised.

I'm sure the slave trade arose in Slaver's Bay for economic reasons. We get all kinds of clues in the story about how poorly the area is suited to produce most products desired outside the region. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

I wasn't "trying to find a good reason" for Jorah to engage in slavery, in fact, if you read my post, you'd see that I've said multiple times that he made a bad decision for bad reasons. This discussion is about attempting to apply modern social norms and morality to someone like Jorah, and in our justice system, motives and past practices matter. So, I'll say it again: Jorah was not a career slaver, he was someone who did it once in a situation of desperation. It seems very much like an opportunistic act and not a premeditated one. These are not attempts to excuse Jorah's behavior, but things that show us that his actions are not nearly as bad as those of someone who is a career slaver.

The reason why Jorah can so callously advise Drogo on what to do with those slaves is because he himself has been involved in the trade before. His pattern of behaviour culminates in this advice to Drogo and later, Daenerys.

One doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

When Jorah is among the Dothraki preparing to invade Westeros, there isn't a question of whether or not slavery will be practiced; it is a foregone conclusion. While Jorah owns no slaves and rarely interacts with them, he is an adviser to the Khal and Khaleesi and rendered advice on how to maximize profit based on Illyrio's information. There's not really much else he could've done in this situation. Not even Dany was raising objections to this method of fundraising at that point.

When you take advantage of slave labour you may as well be selling them, and this is why Daenerys is so conflicted. She at least later on gave the Unsullied the option of leaving her.

There are different levels of culpability here. Someone who resides in a locale where the use of slave labor is normal is probably going to operate based on the acceptance of slavery. This person is somewhat complicit in the continuation of the system and benefits from it in an indirect way, but he's nowhere near as guilty as people directly engaged in the slave trade. Those who use slave labor, buy the services of slaves, and render advice on engaging in the trade are somewhat more guilty, but there remains a large gulf of responsibility between these two populations and the slavers themselves. Most people on Essos fall into one of these two non-slaver categories. Slavery is a part of their societies, and there's not really any escaping from it, so they must deal with it and interact with it on some level. The average individual is not going to be able to do much to change this and so it's unreasonable to expect him to take a moral stand on slavery.

Dany does later give the Unsullied a choice to serve her or not, but honestly, these people are not in any way prepared to live their lives as free individuals. The only choice that makes sense for them is to follow her and ply the trade they were taught. It's not much of a real choice. Her offer to free them is the right thing to do, but their subsequent experience shows that there's not really much else for them to do with their lives.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Interesting perspectives! Surprise, surprise, here I am with a different point of view.

omg someone on the internet is wrong?!?! ;)

I think we're reading ASOIAF, not a song of happy sexy people. I don't think yet that there has been an unambiguously positive sex act described to us in the story. They seem invariably to be coloured by fears of loss, ideas of duty, loneliness, isolation...With Dany sex is also going to become highly political, well her whole experience is increasingly political and she is boxed in, in my opinion, by other people's expectations and the political roles they expect her to fulfil. Here Irri helps her in a moment of escapism and what happens? Quaithe turns up and reminds her of her duty/fate/calling. Sex slave or no, the whole interaction is terribly one sided and smacks more of slave and slave owner than anything else. For me it underlines her loneliness in the same chapter as we are reminded of the limitations of Jorah and the moral/intellectual/spiritual gulf that lies between them.

I actually agree with this. It's both sad and realistic/sexy to me if that makes any kind of sense. I read Dany's sexuality as a battle between what she desires as a human being who feels in command of herself and her destiny, and the constraints that she still has put on her by society. She'd really like to take a male lover, I think, but really she's stuck with Irri - because sleeping with a guy would diminish her power as sole female monarch. And indeed, we see this a bit in adwd when her enemies and friends alike (not to mention sexist readers) begin whispering about Daario, saying she sleeps with everyone, he rules her, etc. And yeah, she's a bit afraid herself that she could let this happen - that her desire is so strong that it's clouding her judgement (o hai jon/ygritte). It's also why I kind of hope that Dany rules alone, if she rules. Or at least that she has a waaaaaay better claim than whoever she marries. Unfortunately in Westeros a married queen cedes practically all her power to her husband.

I still find it sexy because of Dany's high degree of sexual agency. She doens't shy away, she fantasizes, masturbates, considers various men who might be her lover, and, eventually in adwd, she makes a choice. As revolting as I find Daario, I do respect her agency.

The Irri thing was kinda out of the blue, but I didn't find it unbelievable - I interpret it like Howlin' Howland - it was one of the jobs Irri figured was part of the description. And Dany does find immediate physical relief (I'd argue anyone would in her position). But since she's straight it didn't completely satisfy her (this is totally natural). I do think it'll play awfully in the TV series, though, so I kinda hope they leave it out. :)

I think this is one of ASOIAF's big themes - the person with their own personal morality trying to negotiate politics.

word to your mother of dragons

ETA: spelling.

PS Thanks Alexia and MyDogsNameisDanyerys for running this project! :cheers:

YW!!! Thanks for joining in.

[brashcandy]

I'm sure the slave trade arose in Slaver's Bay for economic reasons. We get all kinds of clues in the story about how poorly the area is suited to produce most products desired outside the region. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

It arose I think because it was convenient. When you have little natural resources like these three cities, resorting to slavery is always going to be convenient, but still, it isn't right, and there is nothing to suggest that they couldn't have come up with alternative methods for stimulating economic activity.

I wasn't "trying to find a good reason" for Jorah to engage in slavery, in fact, if you read my post, you'd see that I've said multiple times that he made a bad decision for bad reasons. This discussion is about attempting to apply modern social norms and morality to someone like Jorah, and in our justice system, motives and past practices matter. So, I'll say it again: Jorah was not a career slaver, he was someone who did it once in a situation of desperation. It seems very much like an opportunistic act and not a premeditated one. These are not attempts to excuse Jorah's behavior, but things that show us that his actions are not nearly as bad as those of someone who is a career slaver.

But it is Jorah's own culture that outlaws and despises slavery - I wasn't speaking about our own. I agree he made a terrible decision, (I don't think he is EVIL because of it), but there really isn't any reason that could be satisfying for what he did. If Jorah hadn't been caught he might have indeed turned into a career slaver.

There are different levels of culpability here. Someone who resides in a locale where the use of slave labor is normal is probably going to operate based on the acceptance of slavery. This person is somewhat complicit in the continuation of the system and benefits from it in an indirect way, but he's nowhere near as guilty as people directly engaged in the slave trade. Those who use slave labor, buy the services of slaves, and render advice on engaging in the trade are somewhat more guilty, but there remains a large gulf of responsibility between these two populations and the slavers themselves. Most people on Essos fall into one of these two non-slaver categories. Slavery is a part of their societies, and there's not really any escaping from it, so they must deal with it and interact with it on some level. The average individual is not going to be able to do much to change this and so it's unreasonable to expect him to take a moral stand on slavery.

I agree that an Essosian is not going to have the same reaction to slavery that an outsider might, and yes, there is a line between directly engaging in slave trading, and using the services provided by a slave. The problem is that it is a very thin line, and certainly fuzzy as to how much you are continuing to contribute to not only that particular slave's exploitation, but the countless others coming after them. I think the reason Jorah didn't take a moral stand on it is because he doesn't have a moral reaction to it period. It just doesn't seem to trouble him all that much.

Dany does later give the Unsullied a choice to serve her or not, but honestly, these people are not in any way prepared to live their lives as free individuals. The only choice that makes sense for them is to follow her and ply the trade they were taught. It's not much of a real choice. Her offer to free them is the right thing to do, but their subsequent experience shows that there's not really much else for them to do with their lives.

I noted this in another thread, but Dany is not the one who left the Unsullied with little choices, it was the slavers. They may not have been able to go anywhere but with her, but she gave them the choice to do differently and the power of having that choice should not be underestimated. Poor Stalwart Shield seeks out prostitutes to hold him at night, and some of the others change their names, and probably do begin to feel some genuine happiness for once in their lives. It's a shame that the Harpies choose them to direct their violence towards, and I think Daenerys' pain (guilt?) over this is what makes her harden her heart in that torture scene.

ETA: For comparison, think about what that slave girl would have done if she was given the choice to walk out of that brothel and not sleep with Tyrion? She would have run for the hills, most likely, even though she's been trained to sleep with men and provide pleasure. But the tragedy of slavery in the first place - especially sexual slavery and what happens to the Unsullied - is that over time it wears down an individual, stripping them of life and energy and the will to survive. It's really an awful, vicious system.

[Alexia]

I think Alexia is commenting that neither choice is moral. It's not moral to use the unsullied to kill slavers and "liberate" the city (since many innocents will die, and you're doing something dishonorable by going back on your word). It's also obviously morally abhorrent to buy any Unsullied. At least going away is morally neutral.

To clarify my position, I also think that stealing the slaves and getting them to work for her (which is fundamentally what she did -- she couldn't afford them all, she wanted them, yet she was horrified by how they were created) is immoral.

The moment Dany decided to take advantage of the cruelty that was exercised to create these... monsters, she became a part of the machine around them. This doesn't mean that freeing them and ditching them is the right course of action either. But she didn't free them out of altruistic reasons, because it was the right thing to do and nothing more.

She benefited from what was done to them. From the strangled puppies, from the murdered babies... this all rebounded to her benefit. I shed no tears for Kraznys, obviously the text did so much over-the-top manipulation that it is impossible to do so. But a whole lotta ugly crap took place, so that Dany could have Unsullied soldiers while comforting herself that she isn't part of the machine... but she is. The day that she decided that the strangled puppies and dead babies would benefit her, was the day that those crimes bloodied her hands too.

In her shoes, I would have probably fled that city in short order, and sacked or demoted Jorah for the suggestion. Then scrubbed with lye soap for hours thereafter. But I'm also more than ten years older than she is. She's still very young, and I think it shows in these chapters.

[WesleyLewt]

I think Alexia is commenting that neither choice is moral. It's not moral to use the unsullied to kill slavers and "liberate" the city (since many innocents will die, and you're doing something dishonorable by going back on your word). It's also obviously morally abhorrent to buy any Unsullied. At least going away is morally neutral.

I Disagree. Dany has Dragons - great power and great responsibility. Walking away when you could do something is not morally neutral, its like ignoring a drowning man when you could throw him a lifering. Closing your eyes and distancing yourself from what offends your morals isnt really acceptable behaviour for someone who presumes to lead.

No matter how many slavers die, the prevention of future death/torture/dehumanization is worth it. But again, only if it sticks. If it doesn't, and all of Slaver's Bay returns to the whip, then Dany's actions will have led to the death of many innocents in the name of no real change.

Since when were slavers innocent?

I really vacillate on this (which maybe you'll see me do next chapter summary) because half of me is like "DRACARYS DRACARYS, FREEDOM, FREEDOM!!!" and the other half is like "But what if it doens't work in the end? What was the point?? And Meereen sucks so much, King Cleos butchers everyone omgomgomg... everyone's going to be a slave again... ahhhh." So basically I have the same doubts/regrets I think Dany has when she thinks back on what's happened...

Yep, she was really naive about Astapor sorting itself out - leave 1/10th of your unsullied and some comanders your trust for a few years ffs. Also not taking Yunkai and not defending Astapor against Yunkai was ostrich behaviour. But Meereen, for all its faults is a hell of a lot better than how she found it. And what shes done is making waves - the slaves in Volantis and all over Essos are getting uppity.

I think its a fair bet that great good is going to come from her crusade - but like real world revolutions this cant happen without fire and blood. I think the main lesson she needs to draw is those who only make half a revolution dig their own graves. She has to follow through. As I said on the other thread I think all her failures are necessary character development. Now shes learned that pussyfooting leads to disaster she should hopefully be a lot more fun to read about.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

I'm sure the slave trade arose in Slaver's Bay for economic reasons. We get all kinds of clues in the story about how poorly the area is suited to produce most products desired outside the region. But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

The slave trade would not "arise" for purely economic reasons becuase slavery is an economic net-loss. The same human capital market can exist in Slaver's Bay with or without Slavery. I put up a couple posts about this in the Dany the Mad Queen thread if you care to check it out.

So why did slavery arise? Because someone(s) who was rich and had the money wanted to get richer. That's what slavery does. It's turns human capital into product, and thereby concentrates all wealth into the top 10%. It does not produce wealth. Rather, total production decreases due to the fact that slaves will not be very productive workers.

I wasn't "trying to find a good reason" for Jorah to engage in slavery, in fact, if you read my post, you'd see that I've said multiple times that he made a bad decision for bad reasons. This discussion is about attempting to apply modern social norms and morality to someone like Jorah, and in our justice system, motives and past practices matter.

I thought the discussion was about applying basic human decency to Jorah's actions. I never heard anyone argue for specifically modern requirements, just that Jorah ought to realize that murdering babies and castrating innocent children is wrong. And Dany is disappointed that he doesn't seem to get it.

And if you think all morality is relative, some have argued that at the very least, his actions are inconsistent with all codes of Westerosi morality/justice.

So, I'll say it again: Jorah was not a career slaver, he was someone who did it once in a situation of desperation. It seems very much like an opportunistic act and not a premeditated one. These are not attempts to excuse Jorah's behavior, but things that show us that his actions are not nearly as bad as those of someone who is a career slaver.

I agree.

Jorah owns no slaves and rarely interacts with them, he is an adviser to the Khal and Khaleesi and rendered advice on how to maximize profit based on Illyrio's information. There's not really much else he could've done in this situation. Not even Dany was raising objections to this method of fundraising at that point.

Did you miss the part where she was at the point of vomiting and then immediately tried to help as many of the women as she could? Dany was as disgusted by his so-called "advice" in that moment as by seeing the boy being whipped and the women being raped.

I'm not too upset at Jorah for this, but just as with the unsullied, it's weird to me that he didn't realize ahead of time that Dany wouldn't agree that selling little boys and girls into prostitution would be awesome, a realization that a person of typical moral character would probalbly have come to earlier. To give him some props, he soon realizes what he said was disgusting, as he gives her props for being "Rhaegar-esque" Jorah admires Dany for actually having a moral compass - he sees something in her that is admirable and does not come naturally to him at all.

Someone who resides in a locale where the use of slave labor is normal is probably going to operate based on the acceptance of slavery. This person is somewhat complicit in the continuation of the system and benefits from it in an indirect way, but he's nowhere near as guilty as people directly engaged in the slave trade.

Those who use slave labor, buy the services of slaves, and render advice on engaging in the trade are somewhat more guilty, but there remains a large gulf of responsibility between these two populations and the slavers themselves.

Most people on Essos fall into one of these two non-slaver categories. Slavery is a part of their societies, and there's not really any escaping from it, so they must deal with it and interact with it on some level. The average individual is not going to be able to do much to change this and so it's unreasonable to expect him to take a moral stand on slavery.

I don't think we know this to be true. I was under the impression that the population of Meereen fell into approximately these rough groups:

Enslaved/commonfolk: ~60%

Freemen/slaveowners ("tokars"): ~30-40%

Slave traders/Slave producers ("Great Masters"): <10%

It's my impression from the text that the freeborn are a minority of Slaver's Bay. I don't actually think that a large class of freedmen that have never owned slaves and never intend to own them actually exists. The Freedmen which buy but do not produce slaves are (IMO) as culpable as those who produce slaves. Just as the Dothraki and Pirates are culpable for kidnapping/selling and the purchasers of slaves in Volantis and Lys are culpable for creating demand.

Dany does later give the Unsullied a choice to serve her or not, but honestly, these people are not in any way prepared to live their lives as free individuals. The only choice that makes sense for them is to follow her and ply the trade they were taught. It's not much of a real choice. Her offer to free them is the right thing to do, but their subsequent experience shows that there's not really much else for them to do with their lives.

You're speaking Slaver-ese here. The Unsullied are people, whatever Kraznys may say. It may take them awhile to break their conditioning (and they may always feel a strong desire to stay with their brethren, which is only human nature), but it's clear it's happening gradually even in the short time they have been with Daenerys.

[WesleyLewt]

In her shoes, I would have probably fled that city in short order, and sacked or demoted Jorah for the suggestion. Then scrubbed with lye soap for hours thereafter. But I'm also more than ten years older than she is. She's still very young, and I think it shows in these chapters.

Then the Unsullied you didn't buy would still be suffering the dehumanisations which Dany abolished, and Astapor would have carried on creating new Unsullied without a hitch.

Doesn't sound very moral or mature to me.

[brashcandy]

I Disagree. Dany has Dragons - great power and great responsibility. Walking away when you could do something is not morally neutral, its like ignoring a drowning man when you could throw him a lifering. Closing your eyes and distancing yourself from what offends your morals isnt really acceptable behaviour for someone who presumes to lead.

I agree. Sadly, the moment she went into that meeting with the Astaphori, and learnt how the Unsullied were being created, she was involved, and had a responsibility - terrible as it might be. Walking away would not be morally neutral, but actually the opposite since in her case she had some power to stop it. Honestly, in cheating the slavers, and proceeding to have them killed, Dany took a stand for these exploited boys, and it was the right stand to make.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

I Disagree. Dany has Dragons - great power and great responsibility. Walking away when you could do something is not morally neutral, its like ignoring a drowning man when you could throw him a lifering. Closing your eyes and distancing yourself from what offends your morals isnt really acceptable behaviour for someone who presumes to lead.

The problem is what if you throw him a life ring but then sail away? Now he's going to die of thirst instead of drowning. Hardly a better fate (and worse in some ways). ;) Ok I'm stretching this metaphor.

It's just that Dany's actions had consequences. If those consequences are worse than the status quo, then it could be argued that it was a immoral to take action (woo consequentialism, how I've missed you).

The additional requirement for action to be immoral is that it must be reasonable for Dany to see that her actions will have worse consequences than inaction.

I'd say that the second definitely isn't true. Unlike what some might say, it was not (IMO) obvious that Astapor would descend into chaos. If it had been obvious, then surely someone in Dany's retinue would have pointed this out. And besides, none of us know what's going to happen in Astapor in the endgame, let alone Dany at the time she makes this decision.

Whether the consequences are better than the status quo remains to be seen.

Since when were slavers innocent?

I'm sure many others will bring it up, but many of the slaves Dany freed died as a result of Dany's revolution, not just slavers. I don't think it's fair to completely remove her from culpability simply because she didn't intend that they should die.

Yep, she was really naive about Astapor sorting itself out - leave 1/10th of your unsullied and some comanders your trust for a few years ffs. Also not taking Yunkai and not defending Astapor against Yunkai was ostrich behaviour. But Meereen, for all its faults is a hell of a lot better than how she found it. And what shes done is making waves - the slaves in Volantis and all over Essos are getting uppity.

You're not going to get any argument from me on this - I've made many of the same points myself. :)

I think its a fair bet that great good is going to come from her crusade - but like real world revolutions this cant happen without fire and blood. I think the main lesson she needs to draw is those who only make half a revolution dig their own graves. She has to follow through. As I said on the other thread I think all her failures are necessary character development. Now shes learned that pussyfooting leads to disaster she should hopefully be a lot more fun to read about.

I agree that destroying/subduing the Dothraki slavers and the Yunkish army attacking her is a basic requirement for peace that she didn't quite understand during adwd (she was hoping she could isolate Meereen, but the slave economy wasn't having any of that), and may come to pass in twow.

After that, though, she still does have to cultivate a stable peacetime economy/government a task for which fire and blood are hardly well suited. I suspect she'll have to leave someone there to rule in her stead while she makes her way to Westeros (with the express threat that if slavery rears its ugly head ever again, she'll be back, on dragonback).

[brashcandy]

@MDIND - maybe she didn't make life a hellava lot better for the Unsullied she actually got - even though I would argue she did- but her real impact was in stopping the continued production of Unsullied in Astaphor (I don't consider Cleon's attempts to have been very successful or long lived). This alone makes her actions worthwhile in that sense, and Astaphor is basically a dead city now. From ashes they came, and to ashes they returned. As for the metaphor of the drowning man - giving someone a lifeline, for however brief a time period, is always preferable to simply lettting them suffer on their own.

[Sevumar]

I thought the discussion was about applying basic human decency to Jorah's actions. I never heard anyone argue for specifically modern requirements, just that Jorah ought to realize that murdering babies and castrating innocent children is wrong. And Dany is disappointed that he doesn't seem to get it.

What you quoted was a response to a specific thing brashcandy said. The concept of "basic human decency" that we're arguing from is different that that which most inhabitants of Martin's world understand. I'm pretty sure Jorah doesn't think any of these things are desirable in the abstract, but Jorah's reasoning is pretty context-dependent. If there's nothing he can do about it, or it falls under "that's (regrettably) the way the world works" (as much of his information/advice does), then he doesn't go out of his way to voice objection or get involved. That's what's kept him alive, so it's understandable he'd continue to act that way.

Dany might be disappointed, but she does a pretty bad job of communicating why she's disappointed. She hasn't even sorted out her own feelings. She just knows she's mad, though not why, and she finds it easier to take it out on someone (Jorah) rather than be seen crying. Of course that's confusing, to be on the receiving end of an attack like that out of nowhere, when you've been cut off by someone returning from an experience you didn't share, not expressing herself particularly clearly.

And if you think all morality is relative, some have argued that at the very least, his actions are inconsistent with all codes of Westerosi morality/justice.

Ah, but he's never given any indication that he has any loyalty to anyone's code of morality or justice, Westerosi or otherwise.

Did you miss the part where she was at the point of vomiting and then immediately tried to help as many of the women as she could? Dany was as disgusted by his so-called "advice" in that moment as by seeing the boy being whipped and the women being raped.

I don't recall any particular disgust that was specific to Jorah's advice. She voiced no objection and her physical reaction was toward the rape and violence directed at captives, not at their fate as slaves. She endeavors to save them by claiming them as her slaves, after all.

I don't think we know this to be true. I was under the impression that the population of Meereen fell into approximately these rough groups:

Enslaved/commonfolk: ~60%

Freemen/slaveowners ("tokars"): ~30-40%

Slave traders/Slave producers ("Great Masters"): <10%

It's my impression from the text that the freeborn are a minority of Slaver's Bay. I don't actually think that a large class of freedmen that have never owned slaves and never intend to own them actually exists. The Freedmen which buy but do not produce slaves are (IMO) as culpable as those who produce slaves. Just as the Dothraki and Pirates are culpable for kidnapping/selling and the purchasers of slaves in Volantis and Lys are culpable for creating demand.

I'm not aware of anything in the text that supports this assumption. We know the Great Masters are a noble/ruling class, and about 10% seems reasonable, but as to the rest, I don't recall any details that could inform the breakdown. Even in the US South, where slaves approached half the population in some states, the percentages of those who owned slaves were very small in comparison to the number of free citizens in those states. It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that your average poor or middle class Meereenese would have much in the way of slaves. I stand by the levels of culpability laid out in my previous post.

You're speaking Slaver-ese here. The Unsullied are people, whatever Kraznys may say. It may take them awhile to break their conditioning (and they may always feel a strong desire to stay with their brethren, which is only human nature), but it's clear it's happening gradually even in the short time they have been with Daenerys.

How in the world am I "speaking slaver-ese?" I never said the Unsullied weren't people or didn't deserve the chance to be free. What I said was at the moment she freed them, they were so damaged by their experience, that there was no other really viable option for them other than to follow her as soldiers. I never said it was impossible for them to recover and later make different choices. What I was addressing was their ability to function as free people in the world at that moment and it was fairly clear in my post.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

What you quoted was a response to a specific thing brashcandy said. The concept of "basic human decency" that we're arguing from is different that that which most inhabitants of Martin's world understand.

I disagree strongly with this. Freaking Sandor Clegane understands it, and I believe that Jorah does too, somewhere inside. That's why he's a messy ball of contradictions/guilt/shame.

Callousness towards the suffering and feelings of others is not the state of nature - some successfully build a wall of rationalizations around themselves, or are enculturated to dehumanize others, but other than a few psychopaths, it does not come naturally. Since Jorah was not enculturated into slavery/sadism, and I don't think he's a psychopath, I can only conclude that he's lying to himself again, as with much else.

Dany might be disappointed, but she does a pretty bad job of communicating why she's disappointed. She hasn't even sorted out her own feelings. She just knows she's mad, though not why, and she finds it easier to take it out on someone (Jorah) rather than be seen crying.

No, not "someone." She "takes it out on" the person who actually is responsible for bringing her here. If it was a random tantrum she'd be just as likely to slap Missandei or Arstan. She doesn't. Jorah's culpable, Jorah gets slapped.

Of course that's confusing, to be on the receiving end of an attack like that out of nowhere, when you've been cut off by someone returning from an experience you didn't share, not expressing herself particularly clearly.

It's not out of nowhere, and somewhere in his heart I believe that Jorah understands that too. The concept that one would be "confused" by another's objection to unalloyed sadistic cruelty is quite beyond my understanding.

I don't recall any particular disgust that was specific to Jorah's advice. She voiced no objection and her physical reaction was toward the rape and violence directed at captives, not at their fate as slaves. She endeavors to save them by claiming them as her slaves, after all.

Her disgust is slowly building throughout the chapter, to pretend otherwise is silly.

She had no other option at the time than to "take the women as slaves." It was that, or they'd be raped. She didn't have the power to actually free them. Now that she has that power, we see what she does with it (...free the slaves).

I'm not aware of anything in the text that supports this assumption. We know the Great Masters are a noble/ruling class, and about 10% seems reasonable, but as to the rest, I don't recall any details that could inform the breakdown. Even in the US South, where slaves approached half the population in some states, the percentages of those who owned slaves were very small in comparison to the number of free citizens in those states.

It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that your average poor or middle class Meereenese would have much in the way of slaves. I stand by the levels of culpability laid out in my previous post.

Well, I don't think that there is a poor class of freeborn in Slaver's Bay before Dany comes along. Every poor/common/working class person as far as I can tell is a slave. I think this is supported, for example, by the fact that the freeborn all wear tokars. Tokars are a totally unpractical piece of clothing and prevent actual work from being done. The middle class (e.g. merchants, some skilled labor, the fighters with the crazy hair) are freeborn, and since slaves are cheap as dirt, most of them own one or two, or at least aspire to.

How in the world am I "speaking slaver-ese?" I never said the Unsullied weren't people or didn't deserve the chance to be free. What I said was at the moment she freed them, they were so damaged by their experience, that there was no other really viable option for them other than to follow her as soldiers. I never said it was impossible for them to recover and later make different choices.

You said:

"The only choice that makes sense for them is to follow her and ply the trade they were taught. It's not much of a real choice. Her offer to free them is the right thing to do, but their subsequent experience shows that there's not really much else for them to do with their lives."

The latter bolded part implies that the Unsullied will never amount to anything but being soldiers. This implies they will always be the slaves they were trained to be. I think this is wrong, and their increasing sense of individuality bears this out. Some of them will, I think, begin to take up other professions, especially in peacetime.

The first (their status at that moment in Meereen) is correct. Dany was relying on it, in fact. She was also, I think, relying on the fact that Missandei and Kraznys were wrong - that ultimately her Unsullied would be following her of their own free will, not as mindless automata.

[Sevumar]

I disagree strongly with this. Freaking Sandor Clegane understands it, and I believe that Jorah does too, somewhere inside. That's why he's a messy ball of contradictions/guilt/shame.

Sandor understands it occasionally, but I'm not impressed by his moral reasoning either. I've never claimed to be impressed by Jorah's, while we're talking about it. His default stance is one of only being concerned about himself, and for someone who has experienced what he has, it's not that surprising.

Callousness towards the suffering and feelings of others is not the state of nature - some successfully build a wall of rationalizations around themselves, or are enculturated to dehumanize others, but other than a few psychopaths, it does not come naturally. Since Jorah was not enculturated into slavery/sadism, and I don't think he's a psychopath, I can only conclude that he's lying to himself again, as with much else.

Your first statement isn't true. It's natural for people to withdraw within themselves and to lack awareness or concern for the situations of other people (particularly strangers) when they are struggling to meet their own basic needs. Jorah's ability to survive since going into exile has directly depended on that. I've already explained how the conditions of the culture he's operating in impacts his reasoning and reactions to situations, so whether or not he was raised in a culture with slavery doesn't really enter into it.

No, not "someone." She "takes it out on" the person who actually is responsible for bringing her here. If it was a random tantrum she'd be just as likely to slap Missandei or Arstan. She doesn't. Jorah's culpable, Jorah gets slapped.

No, he's not responsible. He made a recommendation. She made the decision to act on it. The responsibility is hers. She raised no objections to the slave nature of the Unsullied prior to departing for Slaver's Bay. There's no reason for her to strike him, period. She states very clearly that she's not even sure why she slapped him.

Her disgust is slowly building throughout the chapter, to pretend otherwise is silly.

She had no other option at the time than to "take the women as slaves." It was that, or they'd be raped. She didn't have the power to actually free them. Now that she has that power, we see what she does with it (...free the slaves).

Her disgust builds, but the disapproval she expresses in that chapter is limited to the rape and brutality toward the captives/survivors of the battle. She's purposely steeling herself to the fact that slavery is a reality of how she'll wage her campaign to conquer Westeros and establish her dynasty. Her physical response is a direct answer to the rape and screaming of the women, not Jorah's slavery comment.

Well, I don't think that there is a poor class of freeborn in Slaver's Bay before Dany comes along. Every poor/common/working class person as far as I can tell is a slave.

Like I said, I don't see any specific evidence for this in the text. If you can provide some quotes, that would help me see how you came to hold this belief.

The latter bolded part implies that the Unsullied will never amount to anything but being soldiers. This implies they will always be the slaves they were trained to be. I think this is wrong, and their increasing sense of individuality bears this out. Some of them will, I think, begin to take up other professions, especially in peacetime.

No, it's not implying anything of the sort. It's simply a statement that the skill they have is soldiering, and until they have the means and drive to learn other professions, most will remain soldiers. I'm not saying it's impossible for a few individuals to be ready to strike out on their own much earlier, but the fact of the matter is that most people in a society of this technological level will practice the same profession all their lives. It was not at all common for anyone to set aside their training in one skill and take up another, regardless of their birth or slave status.

[mediocre cheese]

Even in the US South, where slaves approached half the population in some states, the percentages of those who owned slaves were very small in comparison to the number of free citizens in those states. It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that your average poor or middle class Meereenese would have much in the way of slaves. I stand by the levels of culpability laid out in my previous post.

FYI this is a common misconception about the US south, that "the percentages of those who owned slaves were very small in comparison to the number of free citizens in those states". That is technically correct, but its disengenous. The average free confederate citizen was not going to be a property owner, because the average confederate citizen was a dependent. I.E. If a family of five owns slaves, that is generally 1 slaveholder (the father) and 4 non-slaveholding citizens (mother and three children). That doesn't mean those 4 non-slaveholders aren't dependent/complicit in slave labor. 44% of all southerners at the time were 14 or younger, so you have a huge class of people who don't own slaves, not because they are too poor, but because they are children.

Mississippi in 1860 has 436,631 slaves and 354,674 free citizens, meaning that slaves are 55% of the population. Of those free citizens 30,943 own slaves, only 9%. However, the better number is not the total free citizens, but the number of households, which is 63,015. So in actuality 46% or so of Mississippians were in households that owned slaves. Not a very small number at all.

Further there is a huge geographic variance, Appalachian counties generally had no slaves or tiny numbers, whereas lowland plantation areas of the same states were up to 90% slave.

With slavers bay the population would be even more extreme than south carolina/mississippi (both of which had a majority slave population) because there seems to be no equivalent to the mountain areas of the american south, which helped balance out the state's population.

[Sevumar]

FYI this is a common misconception about the US south, that "the percentages of those who owned slaves were very small in comparison to the number of free citizens in those states". That is technically correct, but its disengenous. The average free confederate citizen was not going to be a property owner, because the average confederate citizen was a dependent. I.E. If a family of five owns slaves, that is generally 1 slaveholder (the father) and 4 non-slaveholding citizens (mother and three children). That doesn't mean those 4 non-slaveholders aren't dependent/complicit in slave labor. 44% of all southerners at the time were 14 or younger, so you have a huge class of people who don't own slaves, not because they are too poor, but because they are children.

My source puts the portion of Southern white families that owned slaves in 1860 between 25-30 percent. The figure represents a larger portion of the population that that of individual slave owners, but we're still talking about a minority of white Southerners. This seems to represent the upper classes of society, including the wealthier members of the middle class.

As for dependents/young members of society, they were "complicit" in some sense of the word, but they were hardly in a position to do anything about it, and nowhere near as culpable as those who were the actual owners.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread with a discussion about the suitability of the antebellum South as a comparison for Meereen. My point was simply that a high percentage of slaves in the population doesn't mean that the owners were well-distributed among all Meereen's social strata. The examples that we have in the text point to slaves primarily owned by wealthy nobles and business-owning tradesmen.

[manitot]

No, he's not responsible. He made a recommendation. She made the decision to act on it. The responsibility is hers. She raised no objections to the slave nature of the Unsullied prior to departing for Slaver's Bay. There's no reason for her to strike him, period. She states very clearly that she's not even sure why she slapped him.

I agree with most of your defense except for this, that Jorah has no responsibility on the matter.

He is responsible for the advice that he chooses to give, and for the outcomes that arise out of his advice

He placed the plan on Dany's head for the chance she will follow through, which makes him partially responsible. The idea wouldn't even pop in her head without his suggestion. As for her striking him, I agree that there was no need, publicly even...but that slapping him or venting her anger on him instead of anyone else has its obscure reasons - her trusted counselor advising her to buy the Unsullied with their disgusting and painful trainings and the 'i am his queen, he is my knight, he shouldn't have done that' stirrings that was left unresolved.

No, it's not implying anything of the sort. It's simply a statement that the skill they have is soldiering, and until they have the means and drive to learn other professions, most will remain soldiers. I'm not saying it's impossible for a few individuals to be ready to strike out on their own much earlier, but the fact of the matter is that most people in a society of this technological level will practice the same profession all their lives. It was not at all common for anyone to set aside their training in one skill and take up another, regardless of their birth or slave status.

I don't particularly find your side 'Slaver-ese' as well. Soldiering was indeed all the unsullied was trained to do since they were boys. No values were taught to them. They weren't to feel any remorse but be as capable, loyal, yet unfeeling fighters that they become dependable warriors when given a command. They were bred that way, unfortunately. I don't think they fully understood that they were now freedmen under Dany, nor what it is to be free. At that particular moment they were sold, they knew they were "bought and paid for" and so they follow their new master, whether she is called a slaver, Mhysa, or another name. Freeing them was right, but at first was not comprehensibly swallowed by the unsullied.

To Alexia,

I don't know where all this hatred for Jorah-the-evil is coming from but your arguments seem to be on the extreme. I have the impression that he is a heartless, cold-blooded, immoral slaver from your posts and I just keep shaking my head. I just feel that your deep dislike is coming from something else is all.

I think he's neutral on slavery but not immoral towards it. As was said, he's practical, a survivalist. He adapted to his exiled environment, learned its ways and accepted it. His experience and knowledge are what he took with him as he counsels Dany (and Drogo). Doesn't make him morally admirable but I don't think it makes him viciously evil. He's very flawed. Anyway, evil is such a strong word for someone who left Longclaw, who didn't want Mirri Maz Dur burned alive, and (future chapter) who was surprised at the sneak attack plan on the Yunkai when promises were made on meetings.