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

[Nictarion]

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?

A starving person.

[danm_999]

But she didn't do this.

She started a war over something she could, and did, achieve - giving the slaves their freedom.

She gave some slaves their freedom, but many more were either made anew in areas she had passed through, put into slavery under her watch (albeit voluntarily) or reinstituted into slavery once she married Hizdahr (just not inside the gates of Meereen).

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)?

Is the suggestion that it would in some way be morally preferable for her to have done nothing, rather than free the slaves?

Yes. I think misguided altruism that ends up hurting more than it helps it worse than the status quo. A desire to do good in itself is not enough, especially when that desire manifests in a huge amount of misery, disease, starvation, warfare and loss of life, and has little to no positive change to justify it.

If she had the capacity to free the slaves, but not to guarantee them a future of profitable employment and all that other stuff, should she have left them in captivity? If I see someone drowning, is it morally preferable to leave them to die, if I can't guarantee that they won't starve to death tomorrow?

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.

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.

And why is Dany responsible for what happened to Astapor after she left - rather than the freed slaves being responsible for it, for example?

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.

[danm_999]

A starving person.

Why, praytell, wouldn't a starving person with a bottle of vodka not sell it for currency, and then use that to buy food? Especially since the value of a bottle of vodka is worth dozens of loaves of bread?

Unless we're injecting a variable here like the person is mentally ill, the analogy doesn't really work or make sense.

[Nictarion]

Why, praytell, wouldn't a starving person with a bottle of vodka not sell it for currency, and then use that to buy food? Especially since the value of a bottle of vodka is worth dozens of loaves of bread?

Unless we're injecting a variable here like the person is mentally ill, the analogy doesn't really work or make sense.

Maybe the starving person cant find any buyers for his vodka, maybe his children are starving at home, and the loaf of bread in hand sounds better than a possible 3 loaves the next day.

[danm_999]

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.

Guess what? All these disadvantages are also applicable to a quick method too. Moreso in fact.

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."

If you think Daenerys already doesn't compromise her moral authority in the way she attempts to end slavery, you're kidding yourself. She allows voluntary slavery. She allows slavery to persist in Astapor and Yunkai once she's left. She makes a marriage alliance with Hizdahr that legalises slavery outside the gates of Meereen.

She already compromised any moral authority a long time ago.

[danm_999]

Maybe the starving person cant find any buyers for his vodka, maybe his children are starving at home, and the loaf of bread in hand sounds better than a possible 3 loaves the next day.

This is what I mean by 'injecting a variable', or basically, creating a situation that isn't very likely. If I give a homeless man some food, it's really not very likely he'll be able to trade that very low value food for a very high value bottle of vodka.

However, if I sack a city and leave them without an army, economy or strong leadership structure, it's eminently more obvious that this situation will descend into chaos and disorder. Hence the comparison of the two situations is a bad one.

[danm_999]

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.

This is a very elegant summary of the problem I have with Daenerys abolitonism. Congratulations.

[Master Forel's Fro]

I wonder what the slaves would say if Dany was all "sorry I wanna help you but I'm not experienced in revolutionising a slave trading societies let me just go to westeros the perfect place to learn all about slavery and come back 5-10 yeah just hang in there trust me your lives are totally easier now than if I free you ok see you soon"

[Morienthar]

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?

I would I don't drink.

[danm_999]

I would I don't drink.

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

[protar]

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."

That's exactly my point - it would have taken Dany's entire life. If she wants to abolish slavery than that's what she needs to do. My knowledge of American history is pretty poor but is Lincoln really a good example? It did cause a civil war and Lincoln was not a foreign invader.

And yes it's true that Dany wouldn't have been seen as a demigod by the slaves but so what? She can do more as a political force than she can as a deity like figure blindly leading the freedmen into war and poverty. In my scenario she has control of Astapor and the Unsullied, so no slaves there and no castration or being forced to kill puppies and babies.

[Steinnis]

Dany told them herself that it was up to themselves to 'take their freedom', and that means for the most part - fending for yourself. It did mess up the economy in Mereen as we hear reports that slaves are willing to do work for much cheaper than, the skilled tradesmen and mason's etc. The city was also suffering from a plague and now a war/siege.

The Yunkish army outside are cutting off their food/water supply and want to enslave them again, and they see Dany as their only hope for freedom. You honestly think any slave wants to be a slave? I remember a line in one of the books where it says 'even the lowliest beggar is still higher than a slave'. Sums it up, pretty much.

[JonathanTheBold]

Most revolutions don't want a return to the status quo either. Case in point, current event sin Egypt. Everybody wanted Mubarak gone and they elected the Muslim Brotherhood in. They failed to manage the economy and people turned on them leading to more mass protests until eventually the army toppled the weak government. Its not too hard to imagine that the slaves would think that a more ruthless man could help the slaves or fight better than Dany. Perhaps theres demagogues calling for war to help Astapor. People spread talk of her making deals with the slavers and selling slaves; which would be easy to construe. It would be very easy for local leaders to rise up and challenge Danys authority. Martin portrays far too rosey a picture in which all of the freed slaves worship Dany as the mother of the revolution and perfectly understand that their lot is tied to hers. This is a very unrealistic scenario and one which plasters over what should be a much more complicated and murky situation for Dany.

Name one person other than Dany that gives a shit about the former slaves in slaver bay other than the Yunki who want to turn them back in to slaves. And I found it funny and annoying that in your OP your tried to make it sound like the slaves had a better life than they did before Dany freed them which is nonsense. so you want to know why the slaves haven't revolted against her it's because it's either her or shackles again which would u pick

[JonathanTheBold]

Guess what? All these disadvantages are also applicable to a quick method too. Moreso in fact.

If you think Daenerys already doesn't compromise her moral authority in the way she attempts to end slavery, you're kidding yourself. She allows voluntary slavery. She allows slavery to persist in Astapor and Yunkai once she's left. She makes a marriage alliance with Hizdahr that legalises slavery outside the gates of Meereen.

She already compromised any moral authority a long time ago.

She didn't allow it to continue in Astapor and Yunki she left and that's what happend. Also everyone single character has compromised their beliefs ever The honorable Ned Stark is just what this world does you if your want to survive

[danm_999]

She didn't allow it to continue in Astapor and Yunki she left and that's what happend.

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.

Also everyone single character has compromised their beliefs ever The honorable Ned Stark is just what this world does you if your want to survive

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

[Anderson Homeu]

They don't know what a revolution or an uprising is..

If you were born as slaves and freedom is an abstract thought, then when impoverished what do you do? Do you revolt or do you go back to having the mentality of slaves. My money is on the latter..

[Morienthar]

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

A couple of dozen loaves in terms of our money...

[Lyanna Stark]

. And it would have been fairly easy establish a treaty with Yunkai and Meereen allowing them to continue slavery for the time being.

What do you base this on? She sent envoys to places that still practise slavery as far as we know (like Mantarys) without telling them to stop it, and they sent her envoy's head back pickled in a jar. So no, the story itself contradicts this.

And no, there is no possible "gradual" way of ending slavery in Slavers Bay. The slave owners and traders made sure of that. While Dany is no super politician by any means, that no politician could have changed.

[SeanF]

The slaves would rise up to put what they thought were better and stronger leaders in power than Dany. Not to put the old masters back in power. Theres no real reason or justification given for why Astapor is like this with leaders cycling rapidly and Dany never encounters these problems from her slaves. Surely they have taken their destiny into their own hands as well, but those former slaves are killing each other and forming factions and fighting in the streets? Its an inconsistency on Martins part and its very unrealistic. She promised them a better life. Dany laments that she has made their situation worse. Yet, Martin neglects to carry this further and consider the consequences of the freed slaves resenting Dany for this.

There are no soldiers to prevent faction-fighting in Astapor. Dany has the Unsullied, Sellswords, Brazen Beasts, and companies of freedmen.

[protar]

What do you base this on? She sent envoys to places that still practise slavery as far as we know (like Mantarys) without telling them to stop it, and they sent her envoy's head back pickled in a jar. So no, the story itself contradicts this.

And no, there is no possible "gradual" way of ending slavery in Slavers Bay. The slave owners and traders made sure of that. While Dany is no super politician by any means, that no politician could have changed.

Mantarys is a city full of madmen. Seeing as Yunkai eventually did agree to a peace (and is only breaking it because Dany left on Drogon) I think it's ridiculous to claim that an earlier peace wouldn't have been possible.

I absolutely believe that had anyone competent been in Dany's situation that a more gradual change would have been perfectly possible. She could have pulled her Dracarys trick and ruled over Astapor and the surrounding unspoiled lands, then made a treaty with Yunkai and Meereen which we know they were willing to do.

ETA: And if she wanted to be really gradual she could have allowed slavery even in Astapor if that's what it took to make peace with Yunkai and Meereen and then worked from there.