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

[protar]

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.

The reason Dany is failing is because she is naive about how to engineer social change. She just marches into Slaver's Bay and uproots an institution which has been the central pillar of this place's economy for thousands of years. The war, famine, poverty and plague are absolutely her fault imo because she took the wrong approach in abolishing slavery.

Had she taken a more gradual approach, giving slaves steadily more and more rights, there would have been a lot less opposition, there would have been no burning of the countryside and therefore she could more easily have transitioned into using olives and lumber as the main source of income.

throughout SOS and ADWD she continually regards Slaver's Bay as a little side mission that can be wrapped up in a few years. She still considers Westeros to be her destiny, rather than realising the truth - which is that if she has any hope of smoothly abolishing slavery then she's going to have to dedicate her entire life to it, and will never see Westeros.

[Morienthar]

The reason Dany is failing is because she is naive about how to engineer social change. She just marches into Slaver's Bay and uproots an institution which has been the central pillar of this place's economy for thousands of years. The war, famine, poverty and plague are absolutely her fault imo because she took the wrong approach in abolishing slavery.

Had she taken a more gradual approach, giving slaves steadily more and more rights, there would have been a lot less opposition, there would have been no burning of the countryside and therefore she could more easily have transitioned into using olives and lumber as the main source of income.

throughout SOS and ADWD she continually regards Slaver's Bay as a little side mission that can be wrapped up in a few years. She still considers Westeros to be her destiny, rather than realising the truth - which is that if she has any hope of smoothly abolishing slavery then she's going to have to dedicate her entire life to it, and will never see Westeros.

Someone who finally realizes the truth....

I've been trying to say this for some time now,But I've never put it this elegantly.

[Good King Daemon]

Because they love her. Say what you want to about Dany's ability to rule but it has to be said she does have a talent of making people love her and inspiring loyalty in others. I'm not saying this works on everyone she meets but her freedmen, eunuchs and dothraki are all incredibly loyal to her.

[Lummel]

The reason Dany is failing is because she is naive about how to engineer social change. She just marches into Slaver's Bay and uproots an institution which has been the central pillar of this place's economy for thousands of years. The war, famine, poverty and plague are absolutely her fault imo because she took the wrong approach in abolishing slavery...

War happened because the end of slavery was a threat to slave owning everywhere. The slave owners were prepared to do what ever it took to maintain the institution of slavery - look they have amassed a coalition of the willing to crush the possibility of an end to slavery. Therefore going slow isn't an option.

The end of trade is an act of economic warfare against Daenerys. The slave states impose that on her to attempt to break her resolve and restore slavery. Slavery is a pressure cooker. The slavers seek to keep the lid down. But it is also a hungry, corrupting system, sucking in territories to support the likes of Xaro as he enjoys watching naked slaves dance for his amusement.

In that sense there is not a choice between well being and non-well being, there is only a choice between the violence and misery inherent in a slave regime and the violence and misery inherent in sudden social change. A golden mean of allowing Meereen or Astapor to slowly opt out of slavery and diversify their economy is not available to Daenerys. Such a choice was available to the old slave masters - but they repeatedly across generations chose not to take it, preferring instead to lead personally rich lives on the backs of massive human misery. Why don't the freed slaves turn on Daenerys? Because their current freedom is better than their old familiar slavery.

Of course we can decry the upset and shortages in ADWD Meereen , but don't forget that the old regime was based on suffering. We see in AGOT how slaves are captured, we hear in ASOS how the likes of the unsullied are trained, we see in Tyrion's chapters in ADWD how jolly and lovely the lives of relatively privileged slaves are. Of course the sons of the Harpy are active - because they are the losers in this revolution

Inevitability change is disruptive and destructive. Isn't this Daenerys' role in the story? Do we think that the status quo in Westeros is worth preserving? How much less that of Slavers' Bay!

[total1402]

The mental gymnastics some people on this board go through to find ways to vilify Dany never ceases to amazing me. She freed thousands of slaves from brutal captivity. She gave them a new found sense of purpose, drive and self worth. She could have simply taken the Unsullied, plundered Astapor, taken the warships of Yunkai as they originally offered her and set sail for Westeros. But it is not in Dany's story arc to be the typical warrior queen. GRRM is obviously writing her to be much more than that.

The whole concept of "Mhysa" (mother) is lost on many people because they expect Dany to just kick asses, takes what she needs and high tail it to the West. I don't know where Martin is heading with Dany but I do know he sees her as being much more than some seat warmer on the Iron Throne. She has become bigger than that. A big telltale sign of this is by looking at how the producers of the television show have portrayed her in the last season, especially the final episode "Mhysa". She wasn't being praised as a monarch or even a savior-liberator, but as an almost deity-like figure. I know this makes Dany haters heads explode but that's why I love it even more :cool4:

The whole Myhsa thing wouldn't work in real life. Yes, people can end up idolizing a great leader who seems to bring great change. But when things are tough, people turn very quickly. I actually expected this to happen during the first siege of Mereen; not after the economy collapsed and Dany thinks of people being hungry. Or when disease is running rampant through the city. Think of Kings Landing before the Blackwater, people were rioting and demagogues were calling for the fall of the dynasty. You say that Martin isn't portraying her as the whole archtype messianic figure but he kind of is. If the people she is saving view her in this way and continue to do so even when they should have good reason to be violently upset by her actions then this is very unrealistic.Attitudes really can change in a few months or weeks as the realities of poverty, unemployment, starvation, threats she can't deal with and he coziness with the former slavers set in. We are very, very briefly told about these things in Mereen but Martin doesn't focus on them and instead the focus is on the former slaves at court and external events in Astapor and Volantis. A big mistake since this arc was meant to (acc to ASOS) focus on Dany as a ruler and not this very bizarre situation in which 80% of the population worships her and has total faith in her leadership; despite all her mistakes. We see a freedslave ambassador from Astapor accuse her of this, but that's on Cleon and not really her fault; somebody from inside Mereen where her actions have been affecting them would have been much more powerful. Somebody complaining about how shes failing to protect them and is more interested in being cozy with the former slavers. Doesn't happen. Martin wants a much simplistic and naive situation in which its just her enemies who are a problem for her and not the people she is supposed to protect.

[GCabot]

The blame is shared. By Dany for decapitating the government, and then marching away; by the freedmen for installing Cleon; by Cleon, for being a tyrant, and starting a war with Yunkai; and by the Slaver coalition, for sacking the city.

Dany installed a three-man council to rule after she left. There's nothing to suggest that this period wasn't relatively orderly. It was Cleon who manipulated the populace, killed the council, declared himself king, and reinstated slavery.

I don't see any reason for Dany to have believed that it was likely a lowly butcher would be able to so easily exploit the fears of the populace to make him a tyrant. This is neither a case where Cleon had already amassed power and took advantage of the vacuum, nor was it a coup based on military strength. Instead, it was predicated solely on the extremely poor decisions of the populace of Astapor, at which point Dany's culpability should end. Had Dany's council continued to rule, there's every reason to believe a relatively stable Astapor would eventually have emerged.

The bodyguard of Archduke Ferdinand got drunk the day before his assassination, triggering WWI. The Allied victory and subsequent harsh reparations on Germany led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party. This led to the Holocaust. So, one could theoretically say that the bodyguard is responsible for the murder of six million Jews.

Now, any reasonable person would say that at some point, the bodyguard's culpability for the consequences of his actions must end. Under the law, this occurs when the consequences are no longer reasonably foreseeable to the original actor. Here, I would argue that Cleon's rise from butcher to king solely through verbal manipulation was not a foreseeable consequence of the Sack of Astapor and freeing of the slaves. Instead, their own poor judgment and decision-making that led to this result, severing Dany from direct responsibility.

[total1402]

Dany installed a three-man council to rule after she left. There's nothing to suggest that this period wasn't relatively orderly. It was Cleon who manipulated the populace, killed the council, declared himself king, and reinstated slavery.

I don't see any reason for Dany to have believed that it was likely a lowly butcher would be able to so easily exploit the fears of the populace to make him a tyrant. This is neither a case where Cleon had already amassed power and took advantage of the vacuum, nor was it a coup based on military strength. Instead, it was predicated solely on the extremely poor decisions of the populace of Astapor, at which point Dany's culpability should end. Had Dany's council continued to rule, there's every reason to believe a relatively stable Astapor would eventually have emerged.

The bodyguard of Archduke Ferdinand got drunk the day before his assassination, triggering WWI. The Allied victory and subsequent harsh reparations on Germany led to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party. This led to the Holocaust. So, one could theoretically say that the bodyguard is responsible for the murder of six million Jews.

Now, any reasonable person would say that at some point, the bodyguard's culpability for the consequences of his actions must end. Under the law, this occurs when the consequences are no longer reasonably foreseeable to the original actor. Here, I would argue that Cleon's rise from butcher to king solely through verbal manipulation was not a foreseeable consequence of the Sack of Astapor and freeing of the slaves. Instead, their own poor judgment and decision-making that led to this result, severing Dany from direct responsibility.

I agree. Which is why I think we needed to see freed slaves in Mereen who she had taken responsibility for rioting and trying to take matters into their own hands. People who aren't happy with Danys rule or compromises and want to change it. This would have touched a much more deep vein as Dany would have then been killing her own children even though she never wanted this and also hates the former slavers.

Holding up Astapor doesn't work because it muddies the waters too much about how responsible she can be for the events. These people overthrew her council, went against her express wishes by attacking Yunkai by themselves and we're told she isn't able to come to their aid anyway due to the Harpy. You then have the incompetence of Cleon and several military defeats and the intervention of stronger powers like new Ghis. Theres too much of a disconnect between her actions and the end result and it concerns things too far in the past and too far away. Showing freed slaves complaining at her rule in Mereen would have been much better.

[SeanF]

But the Council were left with no armed forces or resources that we know of. Dany has experienced enough of the worst of human nature to anticipate a bad outcome.

[protar]

War happened because the end of slavery was a threat to slave owning everywhere. The slave owners were prepared to do what ever it took to maintain the institution of slavery - look they have amassed a coalition of the willing to crush the possibility of an end to slavery. Therefore going slow isn't an option.

The end of trade is an act of economic warfare against Daenerys. The slave states impose that on her to attempt to break her resolve and restore slavery. Slavery is a pressure cooker. The slavers seek to keep the lid down. But it is also a hungry, corrupting system, sucking in territories to support the likes of Xaro as he enjoys watching naked slaves dance for his amusement.

In that sense there is not a choice between well being and non-well being, there is only a choice between the violence and misery inherent in a slave regime and the violence and misery inherent in sudden social change. A golden mean of allowing Meereen or Astapor to slowly opt out of slavery and diversify their economy is not available to Daenerys. Such a choice was available to the old slave masters - but they repeatedly across generations chose not to take it, preferring instead to lead personally rich lives on the backs of massive human misery. Why don't the freed slaves turn on Daenerys? Because their current freedom is better than their old familiar slavery.

Of course we can decry the upset and shortages in ADWD Meereen , but don't forget that the old regime was based on suffering. We see in AGOT how slaves are captured, we hear in ASOS how the likes of the unsullied are trained, we see in Tyrion's chapters in ADWD how jolly and lovely the lives of relatively privileged slaves are. Of course the sons of the Harpy are active - because they are the losers in this revolution

Inevitability change is disruptive and destructive. Isn't this Daenerys' role in the story? Do we think that the status quo in Westeros is worth preserving? How much less that of Slavers' Bay!

Slow change only wasn't an option for Dany because of her initial moves in Slaver's Bay. The sack of Astapor was the first misstep, but in all fairness I don't think she was planning on abolishing slavery throughout Slaver's Bay at that point. Attacking Yunkai was likely the final nail in the coffin. It would have been a lot smarter if after the conflict began to bubble up between her and Yunkai she had retreated to Astapor and ruled there. The surrounding land wouldn't have been ravaged by war allowing viable alternate sources of income. And it would have been fairly easy establish a treaty with Yunkai and Meereen allowing them to continue slavery for the time being.

And now Dany has established herself in the upper echelons of Slaver's Bay and is in a position to gradually give slaves more rights. No doubt there'd be riots and conflicts but it all would have been on a much smaller and more manageable scale. And all the while she can send Barristan and/or Jorah to establish ties with Westeros.

[GCabot]

The reason Dany is failing is because she is naive about how to engineer social change. She just marches into Slaver's Bay and uproots an institution which has been the central pillar of this place's economy for thousands of years. The war, famine, poverty and plague are absolutely her fault imo because she took the wrong approach in abolishing slavery.

Had she taken a more gradual approach, giving slaves steadily more and more rights, there would have been a lot less opposition, there would have been no burning of the countryside and therefore she could more easily have transitioned into using olives and lumber as the main source of income.

throughout SOS and ADWD she continually regards Slaver's Bay as a little side mission that can be wrapped up in a few years. She still considers Westeros to be her destiny, rather than realising the truth - which is that if she has any hope of smoothly abolishing slavery then she's going to have to dedicate her entire life to it, and will never see Westeros.

That's the exact same argument that was used to oppose abolition in the United States. People argued that to simply free all the slaves at once, as Lincoln did, would uproot the entire Southern economy. I think most people believe emancipation was the correct decision.

A slow gradual method is completely unrealistic. It would probably have forced Dany to stay in Astapor the rest of her life, and even then there would be no guarantee of success. Upon her death, things could easily revert back to the way they were before.

Furthermore, it would have completely delegitimized Dany's moral authority. "Slaves, you'll be free at some point, but we have to take it slowly to allow the Good Masters to acclimate. Don't worry, you won't be castrated, crucified, or have your babies murdered for too much longer."

[GCabot]

I agree. Which is why I think we needed to see freed slaves in Mereen who she had taken responsibility for rioting and trying to take matters into their own hands. People who aren't happy with Danys rule or compromises and want to change it. This would have touched a much more deep vein as Dany would have then been killing her own children even though she never wanted this and also hates the former slavers.

Eh, arguing that the slaves *should* have turned on Dany and asking why they *didn't* turn on Dany are two very different things. It seems like you're talking more in terms of story structure or Dany's character development. I don't necessarily disagree with you on those points. I was merely addressing why it was realistic for the slaves not to revolt given the circumstances, and why I don't believe Dany should be harshly judged for the mess that resulted from her actions.

[total1402]

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?

[direwienerdog]

send him to the land of R+L=J

where there are 54 mountains to climb

Hahaha that's funny

[The Storm Queen]

Reading this thread made me wonder if recent political developments in our worlds somehow made us more cynical. Arab Spring brought - for the most part - more violence and the rise of a movement many people are not terrible fond of. The less we speak of Iraq and Afghanistan the better.

I wonder, how would an abolitionist or a French revolutionary perceive Dany´s story? While many of us only see the dangers and the instability of violent social change, this assessment is by no means universal.

I tend to be rather critical of Dany and her storyline and have faulted her for her flawed execution of her aims. But never would I criticize the aims itself. To make a bold prediction: Westeros and Essos still might remember Dany as its greatest force of social change and revolutions - her many flaws nonwithstanding.

[direwienerdog]

that's why i said form of but that was probably too far and vague not the best use i understand but

here's what i meant in meereen they feel special because they think she chose to stay with them and govern them (little did they know...)

there for creating a feeling in them that she cares a great deal ( she kinda does ) and she's the mother of dragons so she'll find a way because as total 1402 said they are mostly uneducated and they could easily believe in myths like that but so i think this is there link to her

but surely with time they would have started to see that this dragon queen really doesn't have a solution and things would keep getting worse until the bubble bursts (and to add the fact that she drove them to war and has no way of protecting them and the armies are actually showing up at there door step) people stop believing and the already weak link that chained them to her would break

i dunno how this will play out because like total 1402 has said george kinda forgot this part and when she does return she would have a dragon and possibly a khalasar at her back kinda like Gandalf and rohan at helm's deep so she would be viewed as the hero that has come back to save them and all will be forgotten and again they will shout for their "mother"

And the mother of dragons burns out the rest of the pyramids and the Sons of the Harpys just like a Targ who's being messed with would.

In the Wow Dany becomes the Dragon again and woe to the antagonist.

[SeanF]

Reading this thread made me wonder if recent political developments in our worlds somehow made us more cynical. Arab Spring brought - for the most part - more violence and the rise of a movement many people are not terrible fond of. The less we speak of Iraq and Afghanistan the better.

I wonder, how would an abolitionist or a French revolutionary perceive Dany´s story? While many of us only see the dangers and the instability of violent social change, this assessment is by no means universal.

I tend to be rather critical of Dany and her storyline and have faulted her for her flawed execution of her aims. But never would I criticize the aims itself. To make a bold prediction: Westeros and Essos still might

remember Dany as its greatest force of social change and revolutions - her many flaws nonwithstanding.

A good point. In the West, I think we're pretty predisposed now to assume that radical change must be for the worst.

[total1402]

Reading this thread made me wonder if recent political developments in our worlds somehow made us more cynical. Arab Spring brought - for the most part - more violence and the rise of a movement many people are not terrible fond of. The less we speak of Iraq and Afghanistan the better.

I wonder, how would an abolitionist or a French revolutionary perceive Dany´s story? While many of us only see the dangers and the instability of violent social change, this assessment is by no means universal.

I tend to be rather critical of Dany and her storyline and have faulted her for her flawed execution of her aims. But never would I criticize the aims itself. To make a bold prediction: Westeros and Essos still might remember Dany as its greatest force of social change and revolutions - her many flaws nonwithstanding.

The French Revolution actually led to the terror and I think the phrase "every revolution devours its own children". Frankly, if you look at the vast majority of revolutionary changes they did end up leading to a brief few glory days and then as problems mount you have unrest and once lauded governments being toppled. Dany shouldn't be an exception to what is a general rule and Martin isn't being realisitic in his portrayel of how the freed slaves react in ADWD to Danys poor leadership; because he either wants to simplify the story so that she only has to bother with the slavers or because he didn't want anything major to happen in Mereen until the pit so avoided this situation. This comes at the cost of this feeling like a real situation or an organic one where peoples attitudes can change rapidly.

[Lady Pounce of Whiskerrun]

Some of the former slaves try to get themselves bought back into slavery.

Did this really happen, or did we only read about Xaro's merchant friend who wanted to be a slave in Qarth? (Just asking; I honestly don't remember and don't have the book to hand.)

I remember the exchange where Dany is startled and agrees that any man who wishes may sell himself, but no man may sell his wife, etc. I just had the impression that it was some of the less-well-off former slavers who were most desperate to become pampered house slaves in some other city.

[danm_999]

Again, Dany's mission wasn't to provide these slaves a perfect life.

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.

It was merely to give them their freedom. Judging by the reactions of the freed slaves, I'd say the overwhelming majority of them preferred this albeit imperfect option to the prior status quo. Is it your position that the slaves would have been better off if Dany had just left them under the yokes of the Masters?

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.

Chaos inevitably follows the destruction of a prior social order. Look anywhere in the Middle East nowadays for an example.

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.

You're looking at these events with the benefit of hindsight.

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.

For example, there was no way for Dany to know that the freed slaves of Astapor would use their freedom merely to impose slavery upon their former masters,

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.

That would be like someone giving a homeless person a loaf of bread, and then blaming that benefactor when the homeless person trades the loaf of bread for a bottle of vodka. The homeless person is the one responsible for his own poor decisions regarding the gifts he's been given.

I don't understand this relevance of this analogy. A loaf of bread is exponentially less valuable than a bottle of vodka. Who in their right mind is going to trade a bottle of vodka for bread?

Dany had to make the best choice she could with the information she had available. That the outcome wasn't ideal doesn't invalidate the rationale behind her original decision.

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.

[The Storm Queen]

The French Revolution actually led to the terror and I think the phrase "every revolution devours its own children". Frankly, if you look at the vast majority of revolutionary changes they did end up leading to a brief few glory days and then as problems mount you have unrest and once lauded governments being toppled. Dany shouldn't be an exception to what is a general rule and Martin isn't being realisitic in his portrayel of how the freed slaves react in ADWD to Danys poor leadership; because he either wants to simplify the story so that she only has to bother with the slavers or because he didn't want anything major to happen in Mereen until the pit so avoided this situation. This comes at the cost of this feeling like a real situation or an organic one where peoples attitudes can change rapidly.

I am aware of the history of the French Revolution, thank you. However, there are plenty of revolutions who did not lead down this particular path (see: The American Revolution, the democratic transitions in East Central Europe after 1989 to name just a few). Of course, many revolutions also end in terror or remain unfinished, yet even the French Revolution for all its terror became a ralling cry for popular discontent later in the 19th century for many French and its ideas still are treasured.

Concerning Dany, the situation in Meeren is nothing like the one in Paris during the French Revolution. Meeren struggles with external and internal armed opposition of representatives of the old order which led to an economic crisis. This applies also to the FR, but its main problem was internal radicalization which triggered the Great Terror and directly killed the original ideas of the uprising. As soon as Dany is starting to go all Jakobinian I will agree with you, but for now I do not see it.

Concerning discontent within her own faction, I also do not see it. Nothing strengthens a revolution more than an open enemy and Dany has more than one. Everybody knows who is destrying lifestock and laying siege to Meeren - having such a clear-cut enemy might even be a plus for Dany creating a rally around the flag syndrom in Meeren