Why don't the freed slaves turn on Dany for impoverishing them?

[JonathanTheBold]

Well, she could have removed the Yunkish elite, and she could have marched against Cleon once he began re-enslaving. But in both cases she simply went the laissez-faire route.

I mostly agree. Most characters do compromise their values. Hence Daenerys could have enacted slower reforms without losing moral authority.

I agree but I don't think she was thinking of slavery as a part of those cities economy or social structure but just as an injustices done to slaves that had to stop immediately

[SeanF]

There are no soldiers to prevent faction-fighting in Astapor. Dany has the Unsullied, Sellswords, Brazen Beasts, and companies of freedmen. Nor had Cleon, or any other faction leader, set the slaves free, unlike. Dany. So, Mereen and Astapor aren't comparable.

[mormont]

Yes. Unquestionably. See, Daenerys bungled the transition badly in such a way that a free society was never going to be end result of her actions. All that happened was the master-slave dynamic was inverted (the slaves in the region became masters, the masters became slaves) and a shitload of people got killed.

It would have been better that she never got involved, and even better a more competant, thoughtful abolitonist movement was enacted.

The latter was not at all likely to happen. It's ridiculous to criticise a character's actions by saying that they are worse than some unrealistically good outcome: you have to judge them by the circumstances that existed at the time. Those circumstances were not such that this abolitionist movement was going to arise or could have been created by any action of Dany's. The alternatives facing Dany were: leave the slaves in slavery. That's all.

Now, I take from the first part of that sentence that you believe that the slaves were better off as slaves. It's a point of view I don't share, but it's an opinion, I suppose. But in relation to the topic, I think it's clear that the slaves largely don't agree. That's why they don't turn on Dany. Whether you consider this realistic or not (clearly, some consider it unrealistic) it's the story the author writes: most of the freed slaves consider their freedom to be a gift worth the pain.

This isn't a difficult point, and her naivete on this very basic issue demonstrates exactly why she isn't suitable to act as the catalyst for widespread social change. She doesn't understand the fundamentals of sociology.

But the thing about a catalyst is that it produces change: the alternative to a catalyst is no change. Reactions don't take place without a catalyst.

Well, she didn't have to make any choice actually. There was nothing compelling her to act in a certain way, or on a certain deadline, at all. The choice she made wasn't forced or inevitable, it was one she made of her own volition, and judging someone only based on their intentions, and not the outcome of their actions, is just apologism.

It's fine to judge someone on the outcome of their actions - but not on the outcome of other people's actions. That's just blaming the wrong person.

She gave some slaves their freedom

No. She gives them all their freedom. Some lost that freedom and some gave it away, but they were still given it.

For all her abolitionism, Tyrion is taken as a slave into Daznak's Pit in ADWD in a way that's totally legal and unchallenged by Daenerys' administration. Exactly how successful was she at eliminating slavery in Slaver's Bay (to say nothing of Qarth, New Ghis, the Free Cities, the Dothraki Sea, Asshai and the East, etc)?

As yet? She's still trying to find the way to finish the job. That she's still trying is to her credit: she takes moral responsibility when she could easily have walked away.

Yes. I think misguided altruism that ends up hurting more than it helps it worse than the status quo.

But here you're begging the question, by assuming that it hurt more than it helped: you are too inclined to play up the negative consequences and dismiss the positive.

It is, of course, morally preferable to save a drowning person. You are preventing that person from coming to harm. That they may not be able to feed themselves the next day is really not pertinent to that moral judgement there, since you are only making a judgement about whether they live or die in the moment. At worse, you have simply delayed the same result.

However, freeing a large group of slaves is not necessarily preventing people from coming to harm (though obviously, in many cases, it is, given slaves are often killed by their masters). Furthermore, since the livelihood, economy, food supply and well being of the slaves depends on the system you're uprooting, the fact they won't be able to feed themselves tomorrow is far more pertinent to your moral choice than it was in the drowning scenario.

Still, inaction is a moral choice. Doing nothing would have made Dany complicit in the continued suffering of the slaves. I cannot see how I could have any respect for a character who'd chosen to do nothing because they were concerned about the future economic prospects of the area etc etc: I'm afraid I would regard that as nothing more than mealy-mouthed moral evasion. A self-serving justification for taking the easy way out.

In addition, unlike the person drowning scenario, there is no immediate impetus for the abolitionist to act, since they can assess the situation with a bit more care than Daenerys did and make rather better plans, or even allow someone less naive and more capable to handle the affair.

To put it another way: they can sit back and ponder while people suffer.

The fact she took away a large part of their resources, army, population and leadership suggests she's at least partially culpable. Even Daenerys understands this; it's the guilt associated with her ineffective handling of the Astapor situation that makes her stay in Meereen once she's conquered it.

I would say rather that she assumes some responsibility and recognises that her initial attempt had some problems. She's trying to find a better way: she's doing, in Meereen, exactly what you say she should have done in Astapor. So far I'd say it's working out worse.

[SeanF]

Well I think it was a good idea and more importantly they really should have revolted given the circumstances. Martin says the economy has collapsed, people are hungry and she is failing to protect them whilst being too friendly to the former slavers. In the real world that is a recipe for a revolt and unrest. But instead Martin just acts like the freed slaves aren't even in Mereen during Dance and still think of her as Mhysa. Indeed some scenes would lead you to think that the entire population are former slavers and not a majority the freed slaves plus those she brought with her from Yunkai. Their families and children are being murdered in the streets whilst Dany holds court with their killers? How is that not going to cause a huge upheaval or anger?

At this stage, there's no real reason for the ex-slaves to revolt. Mereen's economy has been damaged, but it's not the ex-slaves who've borne the brunt of it. The siege has been half-hearted, and there are still big food supplies in the city ( unlike Astapor). They're still grateful for having been set free. Suspected Sons of the Harpy are being tortured, so they doubtless feel she is trying her best to combat the insurgency.

[Master Forel's Fro]

Aren't all the slaver cities beyond rich after thousands of years of free labor and the profit of providing slaves to the rest of the planet. They can afford to start at minimum wage. They can't function without the slaves who did all the work in every aspect of their lives it wasn't just to bed them and make them fetch their drinks. I think they need an incentive to behave and Dany as The Queen of westeros will have the power to not just fight her if they don't change but have the threat of westeros attacking them.

[Alester Florent]

Aren't all the slaver cities beyond rich after thousands of years of free labor and the profit of providing slaves to the rest of the planet. They can afford to start at minimum wage. They can't function without the slaves who did all the work in every aspect of their lives it wasn't just to bed them and make them fetch their drinks. I think they need an incentive to behave and Dany as The Queen of westeros will have the power to not just fight her if they don't change but have the threat of westeros attacking them.

The logistics of attacking Slaver's Bay with a Westerosi army would make such a venture unbelievably difficult. We've seen the problems in getting even small groups of people from Westeros to Meereen (including experienced sailors like the Iron Islanders) and the cost both in lives and money would be ridiculous. It just wouldn't be worth it. Trying to govern both Westeros and Slaver's Bay simultaneously isn't going to work unless you have a well-established bureaucracy and a more efficient means of getting messages - and people - from one part of the empire to another. Ideally, you need near-hegemonic control over the sea lanes. Not to mention that trying to conquer - or re-conquer - Slaver's Bay with a Westerosi army would leave you exposed to rivals at home. Even the Valyrians at the peak of their power didn't manage to project control over such distances.

Dany needs to choose between Westeros and Slaver's Bay; she can't have both. If she wants Westeros, and doesn't want Slaver's Bay to go to hell any more than it already has, she needs to develop a better administration. As has been shown in both Astapor and Meereen, her new governments have been so dependent on her presence (and her dragons) that if she leaves, they collapse almost immediately and either descend into chaos or revert to a pre-conquest state. Setting up that sort of administration, though, is the sort of thing that takes a lifetime, as has been pointed out.

Perhaps a compromise, if she really is set on Westeros, would be to leave a client king or governor-general with functional autonomy in Meereen, together with a powerful, loyal military and a dragon (that they can ride or at least control) and entrust them to continue her work. That would rely on such a trusted individual's existing, of course. Preferably, they'd be Ghiscari in origin, too. I can't really see it happening, though.

The latter was not at all likely to happen. It's ridiculous to criticise a character's actions by saying that they are worse than some unrealistically good outcome: you have to judge them by the circumstances that existed at the time. Those circumstances were not such that this abolitionist movement was going to arise or could have been created by any action of Dany's. The alternatives facing Dany were: leave the slaves in slavery. That's all.

While this is strictly true, it doesn't cover the whole range of alternatives. Obviously no abolitionist movement was going to arise, but Dany had the power to create one. The point is, I think, that she needed to manage the change from slavery to freedom, rather than just declaring that the old state of affairs was at an end without a new system to put in place or any ideas as to how it would work. The economy and infrastructure of Slaver's Bay wasn't set up in such a way as to support a free society, so it's important to make some headway on changing that before abolishing slavery itself. It also requires active management at every step of the process, not just throwing off the chains and then leaving people to their own devices, as she did in Astapor. In Meereen she has done a better job, firstly because she's remained present to deal with the situation personally, and secondly because she hasn't decapitated the existing governmental structure and left the city in the hands of those with no expertise. But she's still not really worked out a proper plan, which is (one of the reasons) why the city is increasingly rapidly reverting to type.

[mormont]

While this is strictly true, it doesn't cover the whole range of alternatives. Obviously no abolitionist movement was going to arise, but Dany had the power to create one.

How, exactly?

You're criticising Dany for not realising that she lacks the power to unilaterally alter the economic facts - but you counter by making a suggestion that would require a far larger unilateral alteration of the political and cultural reality of the entire area, done, so far as I can see, by simple fiat. Where the real-world abolitionist movement was the culmination of long historical struggle by numerous dedicated individuals amongst both slaves and free in the face of persecution - you suggest Dany can simply wish one up? How?

[Mad Monkey]

Preferably, they'd be Ghiscari in origin, too. I can't really see it happening, though.

If Hizdahr is acquitted, she could teach him how to ride Viserion or Rhaegal.

I think it's a little silly to suggest that Daenerys could create an entire political movement at will, even if she had time. That's the same logical fallacy that she herself makes when she thinks that she can just knock out slavery in Astapor, choose three random people to rule, and then leave the city to its own devices. In fact, it's even more implausible; there are at least precedents within the story of a leader appointing a castellan to rule in her absence, but there aren't any examples of entire social / political movements being whipped up from scratch by a single person. That's part of the reason why the characters kind of mock the idea of their being a single Harpy behind the Sons of the Harpy; they understand that realistically a movement such as this is born out of widespread discontent -- even if it does have a single leader that leader would only have power because she has the same ideals as a number of followers.

[GCabot]

Yeah, I get that, that's not the position I'm coming at this from. I don't expect any widescale abolition to be smooth and result in 'perfect lives'.

However, when the attempt merely gets people killed, and doesn't actually end slavery at all, I think the criticism needs to be made that she had no positive impact.

Again, this is looking at the situation with the benefit of hindsight. You're saying that abolition will always be messy, but if Dany had known just how messy things would get, she wouldn't have done it in the first place. Also, judging that she made no positive impact is too narrow a view. If you truly want to judge the impact of her actions, you have see their long-term ramifications rather than just the short-term ones.

Yes. Unquestionably. See, Daenerys bungled the transition badly in such a way that a free society was never going to be end result of her actions. All that happened was the master-slave dynamic was inverted (the slaves in the region became masters, the masters became slaves) and a shitload of people got killed.

It would have been better that she never got involved, and even better a more competant, thoughtful abolitonist movement was enacted.

Nonsense. As I've already explained, a free society could most certainly have resulted from her actions. It was the poor choices of the freed populace of their own will that caused their own downfall. This was neither inevitable, nor Dany's fault.

The vast majority of slaves disagree with you that Dany should have left them in bondage rather than given them the liberty to choose their own fate.

You can say that you wish a more competent abolitionist movement had been there instead, but there was no such alternative. Dany was the only one remotely contemplating anything like abolition. Obviously, not every choice she made was perfect, she's not infallible, but overall I am wholly unconvinced of your argument that Dany was a pox on Slaver's Bay, directly and solely responsible for all the ills of the freed populace to the extent that they would have been better off as human chattel.

Right, but change to the social order isn't necessarily change for the better. The 'break some eggs to make an omelette' idea is only a good justification if the end result is something better than what you started with.

True, but one cannot foresee every possible outcome of one's actions. One can only determine what the best solution to the problem is at the time given the resources at hand. That's what Dany did. Using an improbable less-than-optimal outcome as justification for nullifying the action is arguing with the benefit of foresight.

I said turmoil would ensue, but there are levels of turmoil. It could have been a relatively peaceful and orderly process had the Astapori allowed Dany's council to transition the city into its new era. Instead, they made a rash decision to raise Cleon to king. That things devolved into relative chaos is their own fault, not Dany's.

Err, a few posts ago you were trying to defend Daenerys on the basis that she simply didn't have the resources initially to make the change she wanted, so clearly this isn't an issue that could only be judged as futile from hindsight. A clear headed peson could easily have seen it wouldn't work from the get go.

She didn't have the resources to do what you're asking her to do - create a seamless transition from slave state to free. As I explain above, however, the eventual outcome was by no means preordained. Instead, it was both unlikely, and the product of actions outside her control.

Sure there was. People need to eat. They need to make a living. They need to build an economy that produces wealth. So what were the Astapori going to do other than what they always had done? After all, Daenerys made no infrastructure or economic changes, so what did she think was going to happen when she left? and she should not be held responsible for this result.

This isn't a difficult point, and her naivete on this very basic issue demonstrates exactly why she isn't suitable to act as the catalyst for widespread social change. She doesn't understand the fundamentals of sociology.

The Astapori were meant to adapt, just like every other economy based on slave labor or other forced servitude. Just because you can't imagine any other kind of economy in Astapor, doesn't mean it couldn't exist. Without the economic outlet of slavery, market forces will inevitable channel themselves to other productive means of producing output.

Also, I don't see how Dany staying in Astapor would have done anything to help the situation. Dany isn't some sort of nobel prize winner trained in the intricacies of economic development. Indeed, as a foreigner, she is likely the last person to have any idea what other potential avenues of economic growth are available. As for supporting economic and infrastructure development, her council was just as capable to do do so in her name without her actually present in the city.

Well, she didn't have to make any choice actually. There was nothing compelling her to act in a certain way, or on a certain deadline, at all. The choice she made wasn't forced or inevitable, it was one she made of her own volition, and judging someone only based on their intentions, and not the outcome of their actions, is just apologism.

Of course she had to make a choice - she could choose to either act, or not act. Doing nothing is by itself a willful act. Here, she was presented with a land where millions suffered in a perpetual cycle of toil and degradation of the human spirit. The force compelling her was human decency and morality, the idea that every delay in abolition means more forced labor, unmitigated cruelty, and senseless death.

Yeah but I'm guessing you'd ask a bit more for the Vodka than a loaf of bread?

I thought it was rather obvious...

You would hope the homeless person would feed himself, rather than merely using your largess to remain in an inebriated stupor. If he chooses the latter, that isn't an indictment of your moral decision or justification to not provide help in the first place. At some point, no matter how much help you give him, he's that person is going to have to help himself and deal with the consequences of his own actions.

[SeanF]

Aren't all the slaver cities beyond rich after thousands of years of free labor and the profit of providing slaves to the rest of the planet. They can afford to start at minimum wage. They can't function without the slaves who did all the work in every aspect of their lives it wasn't just to bed them and make them fetch their drinks. I think they need an incentive to behave and Dany as The Queen of westeros will have the power to not just fight her if they don't change but have the threat of westeros attacking them.

My impression is that while the elite are fabulously rich, Slavers Bay as a whole isn't. They've stagnated for centuries, just living off the profits of the slave trade, whereas a non-slave state like Braavos has prospered to a much greater degree. That's unsurprising. Slaves will do the minimum they can to avoid a beating. Free workers will work harder, because they'll get paid more, or get a share of profits.

[House Smallfolk]

Hello all, frequent lurker but first post!

Anyway, this is a really intriguing topic, so I felt motivated to post. I'm not sure if the "gradual change" approach is actually a realistic option for Dany, and the region in general. You have an entrenched slaver elite, whose status, power, wealth, and way of life are tied up in the slave system. It is not the pace of the abolition that generates opposition from this elite, but the fact of abolition itself. Dany may have been able to force a few small changes to improve the conditions of the slaves, but there would inevitably be a limit beyond which the slaver elite of the region would not be willing to go. There would be no option of simply slowly freeing the slaves and somehow hoping the elite simply won't notice because the pace is slower, or because they will slowly accustom themselves to this new way. This isn't an issue of morality or customs necessarily, so that they just need to be shown the light. This is a matter of material interest, and ultimately they will unleash all their violence and power against Dany and anyone who threatens the basis of their existence as an elite.

As an example, even if we imagine that Dany took Astapor, stopped there, and began the gradual process of creating a free society there, while establishing cordial relations with the other cities of Slaver's Bay, this would still not lead to some peaceful transition. The other slave cities would doubtless accept peace with Dany, at first, to avoid dragons and Unsullied coming to their door. But they would not be pleased to have a free city sitting like a sore amidst a slave economy, serving as a beacon and example to the slaves of the region as to the possibility of liberation. Doubtless, the other cities of the region, and many of those who trade with them, would effectively set an embargo on Astapor, much as they did to Mereen, slowly strangling it to death. This process would be intensified if Dany somehow tried to pressure other cities to introduce reforms. There would likely be continual assassination attempts on Dany's life, and covert attempts at overturning her rule set up by the slaver elite, until ultimately one would be successful. She would eventually be forced to compromise her position on abolition or take a more militant approach. In essence, gradual abolition was not an option, it would simply have been what we see in A Dance of Dragons stretched out over a longer time period.

As for the original post topic, I don't think Martin's depiction of the former slaves in Mereen is unrealistic or inconsistent. Humans are complex creatures and you can't just fit them into a formula, saying that if they acted one way in one set of conditions in Astapor after Dany left, that they must act that exact same way under Dany's rule in Meeren. The context is completely different, and that does much to explain the different outcomes. It is easy to make complex cost-benefit analyses of the slaves' options and alternatives, but at the end of the day, the vast majority would likely choose the risks of liberation rather than the certainty of misery under slavery. It is likely that many of the slaves would attribute any suffering post-liberation to the actions of the Sons of the Harpy and the leaders of the other cities. Would they be unhappy at Dany's attempts at appeasement? Some likely would, some likely wouldn't, the reaction would vary depending on the person. We unfortunately don't get a look inside their heads. Would some of them get angry enough to rise up against Dany who has an army, dragons, and is the one who freed them in the first place? In time perhaps, but not in the short time period we have seen. It's also important to remember that this is not a popular uprising, like many of the revolutions that have been discussed here, this is essentially a "strongwoman" takeover by one person, who is essentially ushering in these changes through fiat. There isn't that popular organization and momentum that might lead to constant changes of leadership.

[SeanF]

The Astapori were meant to adapt, just like every other economy based on slave labor or other forced servitude. Just because you can't imagine any other kind of economy in Astapor, doesn't mean it couldn't exist. Without the economic outlet of slavery, market forces will inevitable channel themselves to other productive means of producing output.

Also, I don't see how Dany staying in Astapor would have done anything to help the situation. Dany isn't some sort of nobel prize winner trained in the intricacies of economic development. Indeed, as a foreigner, she is likely the last person to have any idea what other potential avenues of economic growth are available. As for supporting economic and infrastructure development, her council was just as capable to do do so in

her name without her actually present.

Dany's not an economist, and no one should expect her to be one. But, with 8,000 Unsullied, plus trainee Unsullied, I'm pretty sure she could have prevented Cleon from coming to power, had she remained in Astapor. A council of three, with no apparent resources or security forces, wasn't likely to last long. Astapor is bound to collapse into anarchy, after it's former ruling class has been wiped out, in the absence of a government with sufficient military power.

[GCabot]

Dany's not an economist, and no one should expect her to be one. But, with 8,000 Unsullied, plus trainee Unsullied, I'm pretty sure she could have prevented Cleon from coming to power, had she remained in Astapor. A council of three, with no apparent resources or security forces, wasn't likely to last long. Astapor is bound to collapse into anarchy, after it's former ruling class has been wiped out, in the absence of a government with sufficient military power.

Cleon didn't come to power through brute force though. He was given power by the populace, afraid that the Good Masters would return. Certainly if Dany had stayed, she may have had more credibility with the people, but who's to say that in time they wouldn't grow suspicious of Dany or her advisers just like they did with Dany's council?

Granted, if Cleon hadn't appeared, it's possible that someone else would have tried to seize power. What would have happened, we'll never know. With the destruction of the former ruling class and the slaughter of their army, however, it's not entirely evident who would have the military strength to seize power themselves. So, it's not clear how much the Unsullied would have helped. Sure, Dany could impose perpetual martial law to try and prevent such insurrections, but as we discovered in Mereen, the Unsullied make poor peacekeepers anyway.

My point is that the situation in Astapor only lent itself to the rise of tyrant like Cleon through popular acclamation. In the end, it's the people's stupidity that caused the problem. Dany could have been paternalistic and tried to dictate everything, but she didn't have the expertise to accomplish much, and thus Dany staying would not have guaranteed a better situation if the people are so easily led astray.

If they had chosen to ignore, rather than enable the fear-mongerers like Cleon, there's no reason to believe the Astapori couldn't have been successful in eventually creating a new reformed society. And if this was their choice, there's no particular reason why Dany needed to be physically present. In the end, it's the will of a free people that chose their own destiny one way or the other.

[OrcusOfUndeath]

Oh goodness yes, how could Dany have freed the slaves when you know, think of the economy!!

Although, she did send out trade envoys, but the other cities sent back nothing but negative news and sometimes pickled heads in jars. Of course, if we also look at what the Widow at the Waterfront told Tyrion ("We are ready. Tell her we are ready") then you realise that slavery as a concept is under assault in Essos with Dany as its figurehead. The main reasons she is failing is not because she is dumb and clueless, but because she faces war and opposition from other cities in Essos who are unwilling to see where the wind is blowing, and also from within, where the Harpy is causing havoc. Ignoring these factors just makes your entire argument one sided since it does not take into account the entire situation.

That should not be conflated with that the abolishing of slavery automatically creates utopia, which some people seem to believe. Just look at real life revolutions: they more often than not lead to periods of instability, but they also created lasting change, one way or another. Unlike a lot of real life revolutions though, Dany is not trying to push a new ideology down people's throats, neither is she trying to force a specific religion on people. That should at least theoretically make it easier for her to lead a more successful change of society, unlike a tyrannical reign.

Of course its one sided, its the economical view. It does not take into account preferences or personal freedoms. Freeing slaves like that is a bad move. This economic shock will never do any good to anyone in Essos from an economic standpoint. You now have slaves who are starving or being trained to be soldiers. Dany could not expect the other cities to be friendly to her after what she pulled. Even if they did trade then and there, the city does not have enough non slave resources to keep the population going. They simply don't. Slavery was the chief produce and export of the Slaver's Bay (thus the name). You take that out of the equation and you have yourself an instant fail for the economy and trade.

From the social standpoint shock therapy that Dany is attempting is bad in the short term, but good in the long run. Its bad because so many will die from starvation or wars, but it will bring change in the long run if SHE is present for extended periods of time (decades) or maintains presence in Essos via a trusted proxy and an army to support him/her. Once she leaves Essos all this is for nothing as many slaves will go back to the slavers because they will be starving or diseased. Without leadership and material support they don't have anything going for them. The system is so deeply rooted and has so many powerful supporters that the change stemming from the incursion that Dany is doing isn't gonna last unless she is present (and even with her it isn't doing all that well). No one is going to help the slaves be free. They will all work with full force to get them back.