Why do people hate Dany?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I would submit that Jorah and Barristan are VERY weak counselors whose suggestions I would not take withouot a big grain of salt

And yet Dany keeps Barristan by her side and makes him her Hand, and only dismisses Jorah when she finds out he betrayed her. If they're weak counselors, what does that say about the person who keeps their counsel?

I find the idea that Quaithe has much to say that would truly be of help very dubious. Someone telling you to beware when you don't have enough information/perspective to understand and don't know if you should even trust said person is a dubious advantage.

Fair enough. Dany seems to take it to heart though, so again, if it's dubious advice, what does that say about the person who listens to it?

[BlueDragon]

Agreed. Human races is a biologically meaningless concept. How does it make it impossible for a black person to believe in races and to feel that their race is superior to the "white race"?

It doesn't. But the racial system we have does not work that way. Some African Americans do believe that, but that ideology is quite rare.

[BlueDragon]

And yet Dany keeps Barristan by her side and makes him her Hand, and only dismisses Jorah when she finds out he betrayed her. If they're weak counselors, what does that say about the person who keeps their counsel? Fair enough. Dany seems to take it to heart though, so again, if it's dubious advice, what does that say about the person who listens to it?

I'm trying to be clear that I am not into judging Dany. Neither am I into judging/hating the vast majority of these characters. The mountain and the ramseys revolt me, but I wouldn't say I hate them.

[QuaitheTheShadow]

The only information Melisandre fed to Jon was that Arya would be coming to him, which turned out to be worse than cryptic, since it was wrong.

My memory's a bit hazy but Mel also warned Jon not to let a bunch of ships sail because they'd be wrecked.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm trying to be clear that I am not into judging Dany. Neither am I into judging/hating the vast majority of these characters. The mountain and the ramseys revolt me, but I wouldn't say I hate them.

Then you should accept that not all people share your view, that it's their prerogative to judge/like/dislike whoever they want and that such things are going to come up in discussion, not just about Dany, but about every major character. If no one ever participated in dissecting and judging characters' actions and personalities and motivations, this forum would be dead.

[Fantôme]

It doesn't. But the racial system we have does not work that way. Some African Americans do believe that, but that ideology is quite rare.

Rare. So you do admit racism doesn't necessarily require a form of power over someone else.The whole argument started because someone stated that nobody can be racist of white people or heterophobic or whatever and that it 's worrying that we don't realize it.

[BlueDragon]

ADwD spoilers, but no one else seems to have minded em.. Dany is told by all her advisors over and over not to trust the people who turn out to be untrustworthy. You list a bunch of people who are either dead or not there by the time Jon has to command (excepting Melisandre, and Sam briefly), how the hell does that help him with his current situation? And if you think that Stannis somehow helped Jon in his position of commander, you need to read the books again. I'm not saying Jon was perfect (I think he made a lot of bad decisions, and I agree with you that he ignored Ned's training), but Dany ignores the painfully obvious to the point where it is excruciating to read.

Are we not supposed to include spoilers here? I thought this was the section for people who had finished all the books.

I never said Jon ignored Ned's training. I don't think the fact that Jon's teachers are no longer around him is relevant. He benefitted from what they taught him. I still think he makes mistakes he wouldn't were he even a little older and I still think Martin's point is that many of these leaders are very young indeed.

[danm_999]

My memory's a bit hazy but Mel also warned Jon not to let a bunch of ships sail because they'd be wrecked.

Her whole vision about Hardhome and Eastwatch is a mess, since she admits to Jon that the towers she sees in the flames at Eastwatch look nothing like what she knows the towers actually look like. Then she goes on about how you should fault the reader and not the book if the visions are wrong, and what she saw may not actually be a literal representation.

The only concrete information she gives Jon is about Arya, because she's trying to win his favour.

[bbqq]

Are we not supposed to include spoilers here? I thought this was the section for people who had finished all the books. I never said Jon ignored Ned's training. I don't think the fact that Jon's teachers are no longer around him is relevant. He benefitted from what they taught him. I still think he makes mistakes he wouldn't were he even a little older and I still think Martin's point is that many of these leaders are very young indeed.

I'm not certain.. In the aDwD section rules it does say 'This is the ONLY place to discuss A Dance with Dragons through August 12th.After that, spoilers will be permitted in other areas'. I was unsure as to whether it meant this august 12th or last year's (I haven't been here a year), and why it's written in the future tense if it meant last year.

I assumed that was your point when you mentioned that Jon had been given Ned's council, because he clearly doesn't follow it. But yes, I agree with your overall point, my apologies for misreading your intent the first time.

[QuaitheTheShadow]

Her whole vision about Hardhome and Eastwatch is a mess, since she admits to Jon that the towers she sees in the flames at Eastwatch look nothing like what she knows the towers actually look like. Then she goes on about how you should fault the reader and not the book if the visions are wrong, and what she saw may not actually be a literal representation.

The only concrete information she gives Jon is about Arya, because she's trying to win his favour.

Well, it's about as concrete as Quaithe's warning's, no?

If we judge any of the contenders for the throne by their current results - as in how their people are fairing - I don't think Dany's ragged bunch is much worse off than Rob/Ned's bannermen, Baelon's Iron Born, Tywin's children, or Stannis's meager band. They've all produced pretty subpar results.

Side note: Do you think Ned would have beheaded Jon for forsaking his vows and taking up arms against the 'rightful' lord of the North? I've always wondered this :P

Edit: typos

[PatrickStormborn]

Melisandre told Jon he had enemies and I believe the general response was, "Well no shit." I imagine that some specific information about sigils or nicknames would have been appreciated. The one time she told him something specific, about Arya coming, it was WRONG.

I'm also still waiting for you to explain to me what large-scale destruction Jon wreaks that's, how did you put it, "equal to Dany."

Melisandre told Jon that he had enemies, and she then told him to keep Ghost close. He didn't listen to her advice, so he was assassinated. Sounds pretty clear to me.

I've posted this twice already, but I'll repeat it just for you: people criticise Dany for standing aside as her brother was killed. Personally I see Jon leaving "Arya" with Ramsay to be much worse (particularly as he had the power to send a force to retrieve her). Moreover, Dany is -- rightfully -- criticised for harsh measures such as torture, and yet no one thinks badly of Jon for keeping the Wildlings in a place where they're under threat from the Others, therefore leading to a rise in the number of wights. And then there's the Mother Mole crisis...

Dany is also heavily, heavily criticised for exiling Jorah, a man who betrayed her, and yet Jon is not criticised for his stupidity surrounding advisers.

[danm_999]

Well, it's about as concrete as Quaithe's warning's, no?

Well, not really, since anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of Westerosi banners could probably parse out from Quaithe that a Lannister is coming, a Greyjoy is coming, a Connington is coming, a Martell is coming and that you shouldn't trust any of them.

What is Jon to make of Melisandre's semi-literal attack on Eastwatch that doesn't appear as Eastwatch? That Eastwatch is going to be attacked? That he should fear Cotter Pyke? That a threat is coming from the sea?

Quaithe only veils the names in her prophecy. Melisandre veils the meanings in hers.

[Fantôme]

Melisandre told Jon that he had enemies, and she then told him to keep Ghost close. He didn't listen to her advice, so he was assassinated. Sounds pretty clear to me. I've posted this twice already, but I'll repeat it just for you: people criticise Dany for standing aside as her brother was killed. Personally I see Jon leaving "Arya" with Ramsay to be much worse (particularly as he had the power to send a force to retrieve her). Moreover, Dany is -- rightfully -- criticised for harsh measures such as torture, and yet no one thinks badly of Jon for keeping the Wildlings in a place where they're under threat from the Others, therefore leading to a rise in the number of wights. And then there's the Mother Mole crisis... Dany is also heavily, heavily criticised for exiling Jorah, a man who betrayed her, and yet Jon is not criticised for his stupidity surrounding advisers.

Hum what? Did you miss Jon letting the widlings through the wall or intending to lead himself a group of men of the watch to Hardhome?And sending ships there?

[PatrickStormborn]

Hum what? Did you miss Jon letting the widlings through the wall or intending to lead himself a group of men of the watch to Hardhome?And sending ships there?

I was referring to his actions in ASOS.

[Faint]

Melisandre told Jon he had enemies and I believe the general response was, "Well no shit." I imagine that some specific information about sigils or nicknames would have been appreciated. The one time she told him something specific, about Arya coming, it was WRONG.

You've completely mischaracterized the scene. Melisandre offered to get into specifics, even offered to give Jon their names, but he didn't want to hear it. She then warned him that his enemies were those he thought his allies but, again, Jon didn't want to hear it.

You have so many enemies. Shall I tell you their names?”

“I know their names.”

“Do not be so certain.” The ruby at Melisandre’s throat gleamed red. “It is not the foes who curse you to your face that you must fear, but those who smile when you are looking and sharpen their knives when you turn your back. You would do well to keep your wolf close beside you."

EDIT: Incidentally, if that isn't an example of not taking good advice, I don't know what is.

[QuaitheTheShadow]

Well, not really, since anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of Westerosi banners could probably parse out from Quaithe that a Lannister is coming, a Greyjoy is coming, a Connington is coming, a Martell is coming and that you shouldn't trust any of them. What is Jon to make of Melisandre's semi-literal attack on Eastwatch that doesn't appear as Eastwatch? That Eastwatch is going to be attacked? That he should fear Cotter Pyke? That a threat is coming from the sea? Quaithe only veils the names in her prophecy. Melisandre veils the meanings in hers.

What is Dany to make of Dark Flame and a mummer's dragon? If she had trusted the sun's son which everyone gives her flak for not doing, she may have been better off

They both boil down to - 'beware' - with no additional justification and no advice as to how to proceed.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Melisandre told Jon that he had enemies, and she then told him to keep Ghost close. He didn't listen to her advice, so he was assassinated. Sounds pretty clear to me.

And what incentive did Jon have for believing her? If you think Mel's right, maybe she's right about Stannis being AA, too. She saw it, didn't she?

I've posted this twice already, but I'll repeat it just for you: people criticise Dany for standing aside as her brother was killed. Personally I see Jon leaving "Arya" with Ramsay to be much worse (particularly as he had the power to send a force to retrieve her). Moreover, Dany is -- rightfully -- criticised for harsh measures such as torture, and yet no one thinks badly of Jon for keeping the Wildlings in a place where they're under threat from the Others, therefore leading to a rise in the number of wights. And then there's the Mother Mole crisis...

Is that seriously all you have, over and over again? I've already shredded the Arya thing — The Watch takes no part. How can Jon tell Sam he has "no father, only brothers" if he doesn't stick to that standard himself? If he did that he'd be a hypocrite and you'd no doubt be bitching about that, too. There are actually people who argue that Jon went too far just by allowing Mance to go after her. I can only imagine the shitstorm if Jon actually sent rangers after her, led by, no doubt, YOU. You're making something out of nothing. The ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT of taking the black is that you sever your family ties, or did you miss that part? Again, why should Jon be held to a different standard than everyone else?

What are you even talking about, "keeping the Wildlings in a place where they're under threat from the Others"? Seriously, what is this?

You mean the Mother Mole crisis where a bunch of wildlings were given the free-and-clear choice to follow Mother Mole to Hardhome? And when Jon tried to send ships to help them — a bad position that they got themselves into, I might add — they ran into trouble? I assume you think he should have sent no help. And again, if he had sent no help, you'd be bitching about that. This is what I mean when I say that Jon can't win.

And none of that equals mass crucifixion or torture or sacking cities.

Dany is also heavily, heavily criticised for exiling Jorah, a man who betrayed her, and yet Jon is not criticised for his stupidity surrounding advisers.

Uh, Jon doesn't have the option of booting them out of the Watch if they piss him off. The most he can do is send them away, which I believe he does or tries to do.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I was referring to his actions in ASOS.

You mean when they were still the enemy and still attacking the Wall and the Watch? To use one of your own nuggets, JFC.

You've completely mischaracterized the scene. Melisandre offered to get into specifics, even offered to give Jon their names, but he didn't want to hear it. She then warned him that his enemies were those he thought his allies but, again, Jon didn't want to hear it. EDIT: Incidentally, if that isn't an example of not taking good advice, I don't know what is.

Fine, I admit I misread it. But why do people insist on picking and choosing what to believe about Melisandre's advice? Why is this sound, but her vision of Stannis as AA is bullshit? Where do you draw the line between "not taking good advice" by ignoring her, and ignoring her because she's full of shit? How is one supposed to know out of hand which is which?

[Fantôme]

I was referring to his actions in ASOS.

Then I'm even more lost. Was Mother Mole in Storms? It's been a while,I don't remember well. And by "keeping the widlings in a place..." I assume you're not referring to not letting an enemy army with obvious war intentions through the wall, are you?

[BlueDragon]

@BlueDragon Respectfully, the definition of "racisim" to which you refer is not the one provided by the OED. I hadn't brought that out to be snarky, but to isolate the term from the associations you had attached to it as part of its technical definition. Racism (and any ism), power and oppression are all correlated, and no one can deny that. Bear in mind that "couch" + "potato" + "TV" are often co-morbid terms, but it does not change the definition of "couch" as having the imperative that it MUST involve vegging out and watching TV. An "ism" as such is founded on the belief that there are essential characteristic and qualitative judgments that represent an entire group of people. It is a way to discriminate, call attention to differences, establish the presence of "other." This can be done for positive attributes ("All Asians are good at math," for example) and obviously negative ones.

"All Asians are good at math" is an example of using what seems to be a positive attribute as a negtive. The idea of Asians being a model minority is complicated, but basically it is used to deepen discrimination against other peoples of color and it serves to limit what Asians are allowed to do in our culture, e.g. they are not enfranchised to succeed outside of math and science and the technosphere.

But it's important to think of the strict definition of the term here, because it speaks directly to the notion of drawing a line between one groups and the "other," and by attributing characteristics to an entire people based on the characteristics of a few.

I don't know what you mean by strict definition? Dictionary definition? Dictionary defintions can be different depending on which source one uses, but over time they converge. Below is the full OED definition of racism. I don't see any issues here. But one does need to use the entry for 'race' in addition in order to be precise in any discussion. Inferior or superior = heirarchy. In practice, the 'white' race has always been defined as the ultimate superior race. This is the first move on the chessboard of race. Nothing about race can be understood unless we acknowledge that fact.

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occas. in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities. Cf. racialism n.

1926 Manchester Guardian 9 Feb. 7/4 The press of the Left is extremely mild. The [French publication] ‘Quotidien’ remarks neutrally that the two Nationalisms are in conflict, and that ‘if German racism is a danger to the world Fascism is another.’

1932 Christian Science Monitor 21 Oct. 8 It is altgether inaccurate to suggest that Europe is being indoctrinated with Fascism or Racism.

1936 L. Dennis Coming Amer. Fascism ix. 109 If‥it be assumed that one of our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races from citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the annihilation, deportation, or sterilization of the excluded races. If‥as I devoutly hope will be the case, the scheme of values will include that of national citizenship in which race will be no qualifying or disqualifying condition, then [etc.].

1940 R. Benedict Race: Science & Politics i. 7 Racism is an ism to which everyone in the world today is exposed.

1952 Theology 55 283 The idolatry of our time—its setting up of nationalism, racism, vulgar materialism.

1960 New Left Rev. Jan.–Feb. 21/2 George Rogers saw fit to kow-tow to the incipient racism of his electorate by including a line about getting rid of ‘undesirable elements’.

1971 Ceylon Daily News (Colombo) 18 Sept. 8/5 Mr. Seneviratne is welcome to his ideal of inter-racial marriages as panacea for Racism.

1974 M. Fido R. Kipling 50/2 In The Story of Muhammad Din he wrote one of the most economical and bitter attacks on British racism ever penned.

1976 Cleveland (Ohio) Plain Dealer 4 Mar. a2/4 The Vatican radio said,‥‘Racism might have different faces but it will always be reprehensible.’

1986 Marxism Today Sept. 43/4 The term ‘racism’ refers to the belief that there are significant distinctions (whether moral, intellectual or cultural) between races.

2000 A. Moreton-Robinson Talkin' up to White Woman vi. 173 It is racism which is the primary form of oppression Indigenous women experience at the hands of white women and white men.

2003 Chatham (Ont.) Daily News (Nexis) 11 Jan., The French Canadians were treated as bad as the blacks throughout the U.S. at the time‥. His experiences of racism against French Canadians‥was [sic] apparent.

Also, racism need not involve hate as part of its definition. The example you used is not strengthened by the definition I provided. There is a parallel in our arguments in so far as I said that X person is not a racist for hating Y people if Y people oppress them, and the hate stems from that reason. But according to the OED, and the extended argument I used, regardless of whether Y people have oppressed X, if X hates all Y people because s/he thinks that X culture is superior, Y culture is barbaric, or considers all Y people effeminate sissies, then X is guilty of racism. And to be honest, hating all Y people just because some Y people have oppressed your people does get a bit borderline racist in my book, because it takes a characteristic of a group and extends to define the whole. If you maintain the belief that Middle Easterners are Caucasian (And I'm fully aware that they are- I'm half "other" and check the "white" box on applications unless "other" is an option), and that as "Whites" they cannot be discriminated against, then I suppose you also believe that Orientalism was something other than proclaiming racial/ ethnic superiority of one race over another? If you truly believe that the 9/11 attacks were nothing more than extreme militant who sought to overthrow an oppressive culture, then I respectfully ask that you look again at some of the justifications for the actions of that day. Terms like "Infidels," the notion of cultural and moral superiority, and the assertion to bring down the ungodly lifestyle and ideology of a nation were used. I'm not saying that these are the only reasons, but that these were definitely a part of fringe mindset that believed they had the god-given right to destroy human life. If you can explain to me how this is not an example of racism, I'm open to listening, but I only ask that you be sensitive about it, because I'm a New Yorker and lived through that.

I am a native New Yorker and had three relatives in jeopardy at the Towers in various ways at various times.

"Terms like "Infidels," the notion of cultural and moral superiority, and the assertion to bring down the ungodly lifestyle and ideology of a nation were used."

Precisely, these terms and assertions had nothing to do with race. They had to do with the clash of empires historically and the grinding down of the Middle East after WWI and into the age of Oil. They have nothing to do with race. There is a difference between antimosity between groups that has to do with the power struggles between those groups and racial prejudice.