Daenerys as a villain?

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

So. Remember the Nazi's? The good master make them look like saints. Arguing for slavers rights, what a piece of work you are. You commit a crime against humanity and reap the whirlwind. But it's good to know you are pro slavery. Oh the poor slavers.

The word means race killer by the way and has no true legal definition.

Would you like to complain about the Nazi's being crushed now too, please go ahead, talk about the Genocide of the Nazi's. Oh not the one they commited on the Jews, no the one the Allied forces committed against them. After all they were pretty much destroyed.

Or what percantage constitutes a genocide. Part? Hmmm well one person is a part of any of those, so any murder on any race is a genocide.

Are slavers a accepted political group or cast? Cause it's not just the Great Master, you have the wise masters. and the regular masters, the whip masters.

:lol: You know how you won an argument on the Internet? The other side starts bringing up Nazis and/or Hitler despite the conversation having nothing to do with Nazis or Hitler.

Someone committing genocide doesn't spare an entire portion (everyone under 12) of the population.

Actually....

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If you read that, you will notice that it does not require children to be killed.

GENOCIDE!!! is a strong word to throw around my freind we might want to watch our desperateness to prove a point that is not there.

So, rather than add to the conversation, act patronizing and insult the other side? Which one of is desperate? It wasn't my side of the argument that tried the "you-support-Nazis" argument.

1 It is not even technically genocide (even if it was, it the scale would not warrant to name it such, as it diminishes the horrific attrocities that took hundreds of thousands or millions of lives), the very quote trying to state it was proves otherwise:

"a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" So which one of those fits the slavers huh? Dany did not target them for either of those attributes, instead having them executed for what 2 she has established as a crime punishable by death (and in a fit of rage over the slaughtered slaves, one might add. Not very wise to make such a decision when still angry, but still...).

3 Just picture Stannis doing the same thing. Everyone would be "Wooooooo, JUSTICE!!!!"

1. I think national fits (slaves aren't citizens). Regardless, it was the intentional extinction of culture through mass murder. Yeah, the slaver culture needed to be ended. But ordering the death of everyone 13 and older is not the way to do it.

The fact that so many people feel the need to dehumanize the slavers and use elimination rhetoric is another side of genocide.

2. The crime being 13 and older and wearing a tokar. This is where I get the genocide from.

3. Nope. People would be harping on it like no end. I seriously got into an argument about whether or not Stannis is guilty of the murder of Edric Storm WHO IS STILL ALIVE. Please, don't act like Stannis is some special snowflake who would have his crimes ignored.

4 And it would still be wrong, because the motive for killing them had nothing to do with race or religion, but with what they did.

However now you mention it... 5 The burning of people for religous reasons is in fact more genocidal than everything Danaerys ever did.

4. He would be right because it is still an attempt to destroy a culture and a people and enforce your own values through the use of violence and mass murder.

For the record (before I again get called pro-slavery and/or pro-Nazi), I am all for Dany trying to change the slaver culture. Despite how badly she did in Mereen and the whole crucifixion ordeal, she actually took good measures to ending slavery (until she legalized it again). But that's not what she did Asatrpor. She did not try to change culture. She simply executed everyone from the class she wanted to destroy.

5. And see what I mean about blind Stannis hate? You're all technical on the definition when it comes to Dany, but when it comes to Stannis you call him more genocidal for something that isn't even remotely in the definition (unless I missed the part where human sacrifice of *individuals is genocidal).

*This is important. Stannis has never sacrificed groups (or even people who didn't commit a capital crime).

However, after her crucible of failures, betrayals and losses in ADWD, she is likely to find a new sense of self, which may be far more ruthless than what we've seen so far. I still believe Daenerys has the potential to become a "perfect ruler" (or at least best possible one), but before - and if - she ever gets there, she may go through a phase of being so ruthless and cruel as to be almost indistinguishable from a villain.

Honestly, this is how I see her character going. Dany goes full villain until something makes her realize what she has become and then she redeems herself in the war against the Others.

1. Oh but it's part of their culture. D'oh!

2. She hates it but can't do more than saving those few women, as her power over the Dothraki is near nonexistant at that point. And I think her sense of guilt over that fact (since it was her first firsthand experience with the woes of slaves, no?) is essential to her motivation and zeal when it comes to freeing slaves and her brutal response to the slavery in Astapor and Yunkai, in the first place.

1. It's not argument that slavery should be allowed to exist because it's a culture. It's that extinction is not the way to end the culture.

2. Yeah, it wasn't because she couldn't do anything.

Slaves, Dany thought. Khal Drogo would drive them downriver to one of the towns on Slaver’s Bay. She wanted to cry, but she told herself that she must be strong. This is war, this is what it looks like, this is the price of the Iron Throne.

Dany didn't like slavery, but if it got her the Iron Throne, she was fine with that.

Your whole premise is wrong and is qouted as such through the text its unbelievable to me you try to grasp at this straw I don't know if its to continue on with pointless direction leading to anything or what. Nictarion and Mind chap just qouted the text which goes astray from your line of reasoning. Or did we all miss something.

But she doesn't say kill everybody but, She tells them "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip" she doesn't say kill everybody but the 12 year olds and slaves.

you must sterilize (come clean)

The problem is you're quoting half the quote.

Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.

What grasping at straws? I only made two statements regarding the text. One about Daenerys' instructions; that she gave only two restrictions on who to kill. Another that Mindchap mischaracterise the scene of the handover; they weren't at the markets, and it wasn't only slavers present.

The other point, that she ordered everyone at the scene dead, is one I never made, so I can't really see how refusing to defend something I never said or argued is grasping at straws.

Read IRON BANK's other posts. S/he doesn't argue or really attempt to make good points. S/he just acts like the other side is idiots.\

1 Your definition of genocide is just way off. Take for example the sacking of a city in ancient times. It is a horrible thing, but it is not genocide, because the intent when sacking the city (and surely the soldiers there also aim for certain things as to who lives and who dies) is not cleansing the gene-pool, or something like that, but to break resistance. 2 Otherwise pretty much every battle ever could be called genocide, because the killing is based on who wears what uniform and comes from which kingdom/country.

Again: The intend (as you said yourself) is key. And Dany does not care one bit about religion or ethnics or race (as many of the slaves share those features with the slavers). 3 It is about punishing an act (or a lifetime of acts) she now sees as a capital crime.

It is like claiming the US war against the Taliban was/is a genocide, simply because they use certain means to identify/target them (e.g. for drone strikes).

1. This wasn't sacking a city. Notice how Yunkai and Mereen are not brought up in the conversation.

2. That's pretty ridiculous. we are not talking about killing every person in the opposite uniform. We are talking about going into a city and executing every member of a social class as a way to eliminate them.

3. Except when she legalizes shortly thereafter in Mereen (probably less than a year a later).

It's the UN's definition. Not mine. If you disagree with them, or have some amazing argument as to why their definition is fundamentally flawed, write a thesis and revolutionise international human rights law.

:lmao:

And that's good and well. Pointing out hypocrisy and mistakes is valid criticism. However, as in this case, taking the already bad mistake (trying to do good, overdosing on violence in the act, and likely end up killing relatively innocent people), and trying to spin it to make it something far worse (genocide) is not the proper way to do it.

Also true, but still that does not make a character who regularly and indifferently acts atrociously, better than someone who, while prone to mistakes or fits of anger, actually tries to be better than that and always tries to do the right thing or puts others ahead of themselves or whatever.

It is what it is. I'm not trying to "spin" anything.

I, honestly, have doubts on Dany's good intentions due to the timing of her anti-slavery crusade (when it is time to pay for the slave army). But when she needed slavery for her army she told herself to be strong and this was the price of the Iron Throne. It could be said, Astapor showed her the true horror of slavery, but she later legalized with a ridiculously exploitable loophole.

Many people make that mistake.

The wording is confusing, the quote you refer to is something of the likes of "The tokar was a garment exclusive to the free men of Astapor", and to my knowledge many people took it as "It's what most free men wear"

The quote I provided suggests otherwise. The fact that it's so impractical to wear implies that anyone wearing one would have slaves or servants do any physical tasks for him or her.

It's the difference between SoS and DWD. SoS says it's for freemen (I found the quote and put it in a few of my responses until i saw your quote), while DWD says it is for the Great Masters.

This does not help Dany's case since when she ordered the massacre at Astpor, she believe it was a freeman's garment and not exclusively for the Great Masters.

[Lord Tyrion's Whore]

I would be pretty indifferent if she went mad/evil. I don't think she will, but as long as the story continues to be enjoyable, its fine with me. Personally, I enjoy the story more when people I am sympathetic with are waging war against people I'm sympathetic with, rather than one side being painted as villainous.

[Sullen]

It's the difference between SoS and DWD. SoS says it's for freemen (I found the quote and put it in a few of my responses until i saw your quote), while DWD says it is for the Great Masters.

This does not help Dany's case since when she ordered the massacre at Astpor, she believe it was a freeman's garment and not exclusively for the Great Masters.

She believed it was exclusively for free men, but from it's description we can see that it was not for working free man.

They weren't all slave makers, but if they can afford to be unable to move or use their right hand, they surely were slave masters.

[SeanF]

Lord Bronn, I have no doubts about Daenerys' good intentions.

Her good judgement is something completely different.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

She believed it was exclusively for free men, but from it's description we can see that it was not for working free man.

They weren't all slave makers, but if they can afford to be unable to move or use their right hand, they surely were slave masters.

That info isn't presented until DWD though (at least that I saw), so that's where I am drawing my conclusion from. I could be wrong, but it doesn't really change since my argument assumes murdering everyone in the Great Master social class is wrong.

Lord Bronn, I have no doubts about Daenerys' good intentions.

Her good judgement is something completely different.

I do, and I don't. Slavery is a good example. She doesn't like it. She certainly believes she is ending it in Slaver's Bay solely for righteousness. But people are able to lie to themselves. Her actions speak differently than what she tells herself. She is more than willing to put up with it when it serves her (the Dothraki earning money to buy ships). She goes to purchase a slave army. It is only when she realizes she can steal said army that she goes on an anti-slavery campaign. And as I said before, she could have learned how horrible slavery was and became vehemently anti-slavery..... except for the fact that she later legalizes slavery. The "if they chose" sounds reasonable, but is not at all. It is extremely easy to exploit. And most importantly, it is slavery. Dany's stance isn't anti-slavery. It's conditional anti-slavery which again brings into question the real reasons of her anti-slavery crusade.

Don't get me wrong. I will fully agree with the idea that Dany had good intentions and sought to destroy slavery. I also see her actions as very self-centered and not really opposed to slavery at all (beyond how it benefits her, even staying in Mereen is practice for the iron Throne rather than destroying slavery). It's entirely possible for people have to conflicting views and motivations. It's called cognitive dissonance.

[haemonculus]

I do, and I don't. Slavery is a good example. She doesn't like it. She certainly believes she is ending it in Slaver's Bay solely for righteousness. But people are able to lie to themselves. Her actions speak differently than what she tells herself. She is more than willing to put up with it when it serves her (the Dothraki earning money to buy ships). She goes to purchase a slave army. It is only when she realizes she can steal said army that she goes on an anti-slavery campaign. And as I said before, she could have learned how horrible slavery was and became vehemently anti-slavery..... except for the fact that she later legalizes slavery. The "if they chose" sounds reasonable, but is not at all. It is extremely easy to exploit. And most importantly, it is slavery. Dany's stance isn't anti-slavery. It's conditional anti-slavery which again brings into question the real reasons of her anti-slavery crusade.

I do not think she lies to herself the way you think she does. I see her struggle against slavery as her central character arc.

At first, while sympathetic to the slaves the Dothraki take, she has no concept of what is actually happening to them. Sure, she knows what a slave is, but not what they have endure in Slavers Bay. And here comes the part where she actually lies to herself: She wants to get rid of, what she sees as a weakness at that point, and feel better about it, by thinking how it helps her cause. I don't think that works at all, seeing as she is in tears and all that.

Then she sees the cruelty of the slavery in Astapor first hand,and decides to not only attain the unsullied for free (which was the plan the whole time, as she would never give one of her dragons away), but to free the slaves and punish the slavers by putting them to the sword, by hands of same freed slaves. She feels poetic justice is served, the freed slaves love her.

Then she reaches Meeren, and decides to rule it, in order to learn how to become a good queen. At first she takes the same hardliner approach against slavery abolishing it, punishing it and so forth, thinking that she simply will be followed. But after unruly upper class, and acts of terror lead to an unsustainable situation, she tries to find compromises, once again legalizing slavery under certain conditions, hating it and herself and she becomes less confident in herself and more passive.

And by the end of DwD she realizes, that she has to take a stance, and action, and decides to... we will see, but I guess it won't be pretty for the sieging forces and the Harpies' Sons.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I do not think she lies to herself the way you think she does. I see her struggle against slavery as her central character arc.

At first, while sympathetic to the slaves the Dothraki take, she has no concept of what is actually happening to them. Sure, she knows what a slave is, but not what they have endure in Slavers Bay. And here comes the part where she actually lies to herself: She wants to get rid of, what she sees as a weakness at that point, and feel better about it, by thinking how it helps her cause. I don't think that works at all, seeing as she is in tears and all that.

Then she sees the cruelty of the slavery in Astapor first hand,and decides to not only attain the unsullied for free (which was the plan the whole time, as she would never give one of her dragons away), but to free the slaves and punish the slavers by putting them to the sword, by hands of same freed slaves. She feels poetic justice is served, the freed slaves love her.

Then she reaches Meeren, and decides to rule it, in order to learn how to become a good queen. At first she takes the same hardliner approach against slavery abolishing it, punishing it and so forth, thinking that she simply will be followed. But after unruly upper class, and acts of terror lead to an unsustainable situation, she tries to find compromises, once again legalizing slavery under certain conditions, hating it and herself and she becomes less confident in herself and more passive.

And by the end of DwD she realizes, that she has to take a stance, and action, and decides to... we will see, but I guess it won't be pretty for the sieging forces and the Harpies' Sons.

Honestly, each of these actions can be explained in a selfish and unselfish way which was the point of my statement you quoted, so for my own sanity, I'm not going to argue (in part because I agree with what you said, but feel that Dany is also operating selfish though she doesn't realize it or at least acknowledge it and also, I feel I would just be repeating myself which makes posting unfun).

Though I definitely agree that her enemies are not going to be happy to see her returning, nor will it be pretty.

[haemonculus]

Yes, and I think her reasons are indeed pure. But she is naive, young and in over her head, not knowing how politics or societies (especially so foreign ones) really work. So she makes mistakes, but I also think she really does learn some valuable lessons for later. So perhaps in the end the whole Meeren affair might not have been for nothing. Who knows?

[AstronautMargaery]

As I stated once before in another totally diferent topic. My opinion to Dany at first was "You go girl!", she had nothing but slowly started to accomplish things in Qarth, but after Astapor my view started to change. She ordered a butchery, she killed many slave traders, of course, but she killed many people who had nothing to do with it. Dany 'freed' the Unsullied, yeah she did, but what they're going to do with freedom? They were de-humanized, they were trained to be only weapons that act unquestionably. I'm not saying here that the Unsullied will never have free will, but at that moment they didn't have and they won't be able to act individually or as group with their own interests for a very long time. They were bought and even being freed they chose to remain by her side. She thinks herself as Breaker of Chains but actually she didn't free them, she said the words but what is freedom if you were trained to servitude and mostly not question it? And then she heads to Yunkai and then to Meereen. And when in Meereen she made slavery legal with that "if the person wishes to" clause I was too disappointed with her.

To make my point with some real life facts. I live in a country with a past slavery history and when slavery was abolished about the end of 19th Century, many slavers didn't tell or worse the slaves didn't have money to purchase a land to work; education to know where to go, to know more than housekeeping or working on crops and I don't even mention the prejudice if they tried to do more than slave's work. So many chose to stay with their now former masters, but do you think they were more free? No, they became highly-indebited and couldn't leave the land until they paid all of their debts. So when slavery was finally abolished, for many it was just one piece of paper, their lives in fact didn't change at all. I'm not defending slavery, but I believe when you fight for your Right(of freedom, from instance) rather than being granted by somebody else, it does more change to a society. Unfortunately, it wasn't possible for Dany's slaves or the slaves i'm mentioning here.

That's why I became disappointed with Dany and I finally realized that she's a conqueror, not a leader for peace time. She didn't think she was doing wrong, she doesn't think she's wrong. But she acted out of impetus (as when you see something unfair and want to do something about that), she didn't think how could she really change the lives of her freed people. And when/if she gets to Westeros, well I hope she'll be a more mature, learn more about the how the War of the Usurper began, learn more about the history of the people she's trying to rule, be more like Aegon V and less Maegor.

[Satin Flowers]

I don't think Dany will become a villain per se, but I also don't think she will ever sit the Iron Throne as Queen of Westeros.

She wants to be Queen, because she believes it is her birth right to rule. Just as Viserys, Joffrey and Stannis always said it was their right to be King.

But how many of these characters actually realize what being a ruler means, beyond a crown, a throne and power?

Dany has a crown, a city, dragons, followers...and no real political power. Everything is completely out of control for her and she is struggling. Even she recognizes that if she can't rule one city peacefully, how is she supposed to rule over 7 Kingdoms?

I wonder if she has really thought anything through.

What if she does conquer Westeros? What will happen to all her kalisar, the freed slaves and Unsullied, as well as her dragons? I can't see her just abandoning them all, nor can I see them fitting seamlessly into Westeros society. Total culture clash all around.

Dany was raised in Essos, and I think that is where she belongs.

I personally hope that she will come to the rescue of Westeros with her dragons to help fight against the Others, then come to realize that the 7 Kingdoms are alien to her. They don't need her to rule them, and because of her Eastern upbringing, she really wouldn't even know how to go about it.

I could be wrong on all my speculations, and probably am.

Only GRRM knows for sure for if Dany is a savior, a leader or a sacrifice. :dunno:

[MasterJack]

Lord Bronn, you displayed great wisdom and good arguments without showing any fan-biased opinions. I dont know why people were so truculent against you.

Anyway, good job.

As for my opinion, This isnt definite if she will become a vilain, but there is enough material to think this is likely.

As for Astapor, you cant kill everyone without telling em why and giving em a chance to change. Kill em all, slavery is bad.

The correct way to do this is to declare yourself the new ruler of the city, show em your power to make it clear, tell them to free the slaves since this is a new law you just created, and tell them if they dont, they will be punished by death. You cant call them all evil when this is something all their ancestors did and always thought it was totally alright to do. Women had almost no rights before 1930, all the men thought it was alright since this was how it always was. They werent all evil.... Slavery isnt 100% the same problem, but this is a same phenomena.

So yeah, Dany just killed thousand of human being without good reasons.

[cooper56]

I dont think there has been enough build up for it to be believable right now unless it happens near end of next book hopefully its not an instant thing.

[Queen Elsa]

There are probably a lot of threads about daenerys becoming The Mad Queen.

More than you could imagine.

I am just wondering how people feel about that.

Some people believe/like it, and some don't.

I personally feel like Daenerys is becoming some sort of a antagonist to many of the other POV's.

It's not just her. Some POVs are also some sort of antagonist to other POVs and characters.

What do you want to happen to her in the future?

A lot of things. Go to Westeros for one.

So would it make a good story for her to become mad and/or even a villain?

I believe whatever GRRM writes, it will be a good story.

1How would you feel if she became mad and 2how would you feel if she becomes an antagonist to most (all except lets say 2) of the other POV's?

1.There are various kinds of madness: mad for attaining an impossible dream/goal, mad for love, mad as in mental illness, mad driven by extreme happiness/sadness, etcetera. But if you mean Dany has mental problem - no.

2."The hero of one side is the villain of the other side." So Dany, who is the hero for most slaves will be the villain to those she wants to conquer. But to her, those who brought destruction to her House and family are the villains. When she's going to land in Westeros, many are going to oppose her definitely, like the Lannisters who want to keep the throne for themselves and the Tyrells who climbed the ladder of power so high (if they are still keeping the throne when she arrives, unless Aegon successfully usurped them and don't want to share it with auntie). Her quest to conquer the seven kingdoms will surely bring forth a hell lot of blood. So yeah, those blood of her opponents that have been spilled surely believe her as an antagonist. Aegon "The Conqueror" did the same though. He destroyed castles and burned thousands, stripped the other kings of their crowns, and subjugated six of the seven kingdoms. He was surely an antagonist during the conquest, but after that, he was only remembered as Aegon "The Conqueror," not Aegon "The Antagonist". If Dany is successful in her own quest, I don't mind others thinking she's an antagonist if in the end she will be remembered as Aegon "The Conqueror" with teats.

[IRON BANK]

:lol: You know how you won an argument on the Internet? The other side starts bringing up Nazis and/or Hitler despite the conversation having nothing to do with Nazis or Hitler.

Actually....

If you read that, you will notice that it does not require children to be killed.

So, rather than add to the conversation, act patronizing and insult the other side? Which one of is desperate? It wasn't my side of the argument that tried the "you-support-Nazis" argument.

1. I think national fits (slaves aren't citizens). Regardless, it was the intentional extinction of culture through mass murder. Yeah, the slaver culture needed to be ended. But ordering the death of everyone 13 and older is not the way to do it.

The fact that so many people feel the need to dehumanize the slavers and use elimination rhetoric is another side of genocide.

2. The crime being 13 and older and wearing a tokar. This is where I get the genocide from.

3. Nope. People would be harping on it like no end. I seriously got into an argument about whether or not Stannis is guilty of the murder of Edric Storm WHO IS STILL ALIVE. Please, don't act like Stannis is some special snowflake who would have his crimes ignored.

4. He would be right because it is still an attempt to destroy a culture and a people and enforce your own values through the use of violence and mass murder.

For the record (before I again get called pro-slavery and/or pro-Nazi), I am all for Dany trying to change the slaver culture. Despite how badly she did in Mereen and the whole crucifixion ordeal, she actually took good measures to ending slavery (until she legalized it again). But that's not what she did Asatrpor. She did not try to change culture. She simply executed everyone from the class she wanted to destroy.

5. And see what I mean about blind Stannis hate? You're all technical on the definition when it comes to Dany, but when it comes to Stannis you call him more genocidal for something that isn't even remotely in the definition (unless I missed the part where human sacrifice of *individuals is genocidal).

*This is important. Stannis has never sacrificed groups (or even people who didn't commit a capital crime).

Honestly, this is how I see her character going. Dany goes full villain until something makes her realize what she has become and then she redeems herself in the war against the Others.

1. It's not argument that slavery should be allowed to exist because it's a culture. It's that extinction is not the way to end the culture.

2. Yeah, it wasn't because she couldn't do anything.

Slaves, Dany thought. Khal Drogo would drive them downriver to one of the towns on Slaver’s Bay. She wanted to cry, but she told herself that she must be strong. This is war, this is what it looks like, this is the price of the Iron Throne.

Dany didn't like slavery, but if it got her the Iron Throne, she was fine with that.

The problem is you're quoting half the quote.

Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.

Read IRON BANK's other posts. S/he doesn't argue or really attempt to make good points. S/he just acts like the other side is idiots.\

1. This wasn't sacking a city. Notice how Yunkai and Mereen are not brought up in the conversation.

2. That's pretty ridiculous. we are not talking about killing every person in the opposite uniform. We are talking about going into a city and executing every member of a social class as a way to eliminate them.

3. Except when she legalizes shortly thereafter in Mereen (probably less than a year a later).

:lmao:

It is what it is. I'm not trying to "spin" anything.

I, honestly, have doubts on Dany's good intentions due to the timing of her anti-slavery crusade (when it is time to pay for the slave army). But when she needed slavery for her army she told herself to be strong and this was the price of the Iron Throne. It could be said, Astapor showed her the true horror of slavery, but she later legalized with a ridiculously exploitable loophole.

It's the difference between SoS and DWD. SoS says it's for freemen (I found the quote and put it in a few of my responses until i saw your quote), while DWD says it is for the Great Masters.

This does not help Dany's case since when she ordered the massacre at Astpor, she believe it was a freeman's garment and not exclusively for the Great Masters.

I totally disagree: the other side of this discussion brought up genocide. Read the whole group of posts, if they 're going to throw the word around make sure you use it correctly.its terrible how misguided the and stretched the premise is. In know way is what was done at that slave market genocide.

[haemonculus]

Yeah, it is like calling (Django Unchained Spoiler ahead)

Djangos killing of all the white people on the Candyland farm genocide. After all, in his final act of revenge he shoots everyone of white skin. So there is even a racial aspect, that Astapor misses. Thing is, he does not do it because they are white, he does it because they are slavers who treated black people like animals. And this is exactly the same motivation Dany has. It even has the same "did he really have to kill all of them (I think the sister is a perfect analogy to the indifferent, yet not really actively slave-trading victims of Astapor)?" angle.

Eh, my guess for upcoming counter argument: "Naah, that was not genocide, because in the end he also killed Samuel L. Jackson."

[Morienthar]

Yeah, it is like calling (Django Unchained Spoiler ahead)

Djangos killing of all the white people on the Candyland farm genocide. After all, in his final act of revenge he shoots everyone of white skin. So there is even a racial aspect, that Astapor misses. Thing is, he does not do it because they are white, he does it because they are slavers who treated black people like animals. And this is exactly the same motivation Dany has. It even has the same "did he really have to kill all of them (I think the sister is a perfect analogy to the indifferent, yet not really actively slave-trading victims of Astapor)?" angle.

Eh, my guess for upcoming counter argument: "Naah, that was not genocide, because in the end he also killed Samuel L. Jackson."

The difference being Django knew of the guilt of the people he killed while Dany knew nothing of the guilt of everyone over 12 in a tokar.

There were about 100 slave masters and 6 great masters in all of Astapor and she just had everyone in a Tokar killed.

[SeanF]

Django Unchained is on my To See list.

If the film ends with him killing white people at random, then it's murder, but not genocide, which I think sums up Dany's actions at Astapor.

[haemonculus]

The difference being Django knew of the guilt of the people he killed while Dany knew nothing of the guilt of everyone over 12 in a tokar.

There were about 100 slave masters and 6 great masters in all of Astapor and she just had everyone in a Tokar killed.

That does still not make it genocide, it makes it more careless revenge. Also, it has been established (in DwD) that the tokar was indeed only worn by the wealthy people, who as far as we know, all had slaves working for them. So the total number of deaths might have been far lower than initially thought. The fact that the butcher (or whatever he was called, the dude who seized the city) pressed every free born boy into military service, does not mean they were all orphans by that point.

[Miss]

Arguing for slavers rights, what a piece of work you are.

Dany was not necessarily killing anyone who had commited a crime, you know. She was targeting people because they belonged to a specific class , but not all may necessarily have been guilty of brutality (and she viewed them as guilty only by their association to a few individuals who actually were deserving of some justice). "Genocide" is not the right word for it, I think. But it was indeed a hate crime.

[Miss]

The Taliban are not a race, ethnicity, religion or nation. They're a political terrorist organisation.

LOL No they are not. It was just Osama that was a terrorist (and he was not even Afghan). The Taliban did not even like him very much, but they let him waltz about because he had a lot of money. The Taliban have never used terrorism, they were just really harsh extemeist leaders.

Just thought I'd point out.