mouthporn.net
#asoiaf slavery – @horizon-verizon on Tumblr
Avatar

editorialized torpedo

@horizon-verizon / horizon-verizon.tumblr.com

she/her -- ASoIaF Enthusiast -- (I will be changing the title of this blog frequently just because I want to)
Avatar
Anonymous asked:

I never held much with slavery […]. You can’t just go… usin’ another kind of people, like they wasn’t people at all. Know what I mean ? Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see ? Maybe that’s what them abolitionists been sayin’ all along. You try to be reasonable, that’s only right, but if it don’t work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended.

This is an excerpt from George R. R. Martin’s novel Fevre Dream (1982). The context here is that when Abner Marsh, the book’s protagonist, is first introduced he is against slavery but doesn’t do anything to stop it. After the events of the novel, he comes to empathize with the slaves and radically changes his stance. Sometimes, Fire and Blood isn’t such a bad thing. 

The only morally correct thing that Daenerys should have done is kill ALL the masters. Every single one of them. It is understandable of course why she wanted to kill as few people as possible. She has a gentle, merciful and compassionate heart and I believe she will learn how to balance her heart with the harsh but necessary choices she will have to make in the future.

finitefall/the former theblacqveen has a post saying exactly this HERE.

Agreed!

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

The slaves in Essos aren’t coded any particular race, white or otherwise. They’re not racially homogeneous and the masters don’t practice race based slavery. The web of the slave trade in Essos spans the whole continent and Daenerys is not racially “other” to the people she intends to liberate

Her liberation effort is literally, textually, a single Westerosi born Valyrian former bridal slave leader, a handful of Dothraki, an army of former slave soldier freedmen from hundreds of ethnic groups, and a bunch of sellswords, also made up of multiple ethnic groups. Her opposition is the modern descendants of Valyrian-Ghiscari overlaps, and the people she is liberating are approximately every ethnic group in Essos and beyond.

To me, this looks like GRRM took a lot of time to establish a story where Daenerys can both love her ancestors and actively undo and fight the legacy of the Valyrian freehold without being a colonialist white savior about it.

Yep, all important points. People seemed to base (later, strengthened by below) on their impression of how Dany treated (really, just rejected for seemingly "no reason") Quentyn Martell, who though darker skinned or "olive" (which really just means there's a

moderate or lighter tan or brownish skin, and it is often described as having tan, brown, cream, greenish, yellowish, or golden undertones

to one's skin) is not canonically "PoC" anyway. If she refuses Quentyn, it has to be bc he's not "Westerosi enough" or PoC-coded.

Check out this post or these posts for why they/he wasn't.

AND (mostly)

by how in the show, the enslaved peoples were not phenotypically or racially diverse, much less as diverse as they are described in canon, and people goddamn sprinted with that.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

People could save so much time just saying “I don’t like Daenerys” instead of making repugnant arguments about how violently opposing slavery is evil.

Because we all know that IRL, slavery never required some amount of violence and force to be upended, right….? Right…? Nat Turner, John Brown, Jean-Jacques Dessalines ?

She killed a bunch of absolutely pure evil people who were doing a thousand Gregor Cleganes’ worth of atrocities daily. And idiots out here think that that was somehow bad ??

aop, it gets to the place where there can be no negotiations or discussions, both when you are in Dany's situation with the slavers AND in real life when you're telling people that slavery needs to go by any violent means necessary and that this is not immoral in any way, shape, or form. Like there's a point where people are too far gone to be reasoned with.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Calling Daenerys a “colonizer” or an “imperialist” is actually genuinely insane because both her ancestors and her personally are culturally Essosi, and Valyria was itself a big factor in why slavery exists in Essos at the scale it does at all. While Slavers Bay was part of Old Ghis thousands of years ago, it spent an equally sizable and influencial part of its history being part of Valyria, to the point where several of the masters we encountered spoke Valyrian as their first language. She’s not an outsider, and there is no cultural misunderstanding. Outside of the abhorrent practice of slavery, she is attempting to fit in culturally, right down to wearing a tokar.

Some people already explained how it’s not allegorically operation Iraqi freedom from an authorial standpoint, but also, just from a purely political standpoint, Slaver’s Bay is a massive imperialist force itself. It’s not an unstable developing region, and Daenerys is not an agent of a powerful foreign empire attempting to destabilize it for the enrichment and strengthening of that empire. She is a singular individual and former bridal slave being followed by a truly stateless group of former enslaved people from hundreds of different places who herself has literally nothing to gain by staying there. Any allegory to US intervention in the Global South fundamentally falls apart when you think about it for three seconds, because the Slaver’s Bay itself is more akin to the US than it is to any nation in the Global South. (Which is also why it has so many powerful allies in other slavery-practicing parts of Essos trying to get her gone.) It’s a powerful imperialist machine. It also falls apart because it requires to deliberately misunderstand why the US has the intervention policies it does (hint, it’s not actually to spread freedom and democracy. It’s to steal resources.) There are no resources Daenerys needs in Meereen, and she actually is interested in and working towards the longterm stability and improvement of the lives of the people there, which is why she didn’t just fuck off to Westeros (or at least Pentos until her dragons grew) after Astapor.

And her haters keep regurgitating the “she just killed 163 random slavers and didn’t find out who ackshulllyyyy was responsible” talking point, but contrary to the show, there was no poor sad little Hizdar’s daddy who was really really so sad about the 163 murdered enslaved children. Because that’s not how anything works. Killing 163 children to intimidate Daenerys was not something that a few bad eggs got together and did by themselves, it was an official act of the state. The state in Meereen is collectively run by the masters, and organizing that kind of deliberate, calculated horrific action, from planning to execution, is the collective responsibility of all of the officials in the state. Every single one of them was as guilty as the next and the only problem there was symbolically only killing 163 of them instead of the all of them.

just from a purely political standpoint, Slaver’s Bay is a massive imperialist force itself. It’s not an unstable developing region, and Daenerys is not an agent of a powerful foreign empire attempting to destabilize it for the enrichment and strengthening of that empire...Any allegory to US intervention in the Global South fundamentally falls apart when you think about it for three seconds, because the Slaver’s Bay itself is more akin to the US than it is to any nation in the Global South. (Which is also why it has so many powerful allies in other slavery-practicing parts of Essos trying to get her gone.) It’s a powerful imperialist machine. It also falls apart because it requires to deliberately misunderstand why the US has the intervention policies it does (hint, it’s not actually to spread freedom and democracy. It’s to steal resources.)

Absolutely, but they'll almost never admit to that (unless it's like that blonde whitey on TikTok who blase said she'd be fine with Southern states integrating slavery) part of U.S. liberalism is disguised conservatism bc white supremacy.

Avatar
Avatar
winterlorn

People who say that Dany should've tried to end slavery "peacefully" are saying that incidental physical violence is worse than systemic violence. Sure Slaver's Bay may have been "at peace" before she came there, but your definition of "peace" is very different from mine if that peace constitutes violence perpetrated every day against a large part of the population. Dany could not have ended slavery without starting a war. She tried and look how that ended up. To the people who are saying that she should have tried to do it peacefully, I want to ask: or what? Or what if she couldn't have done it peacefully, or without bloodshed? If the implied answer is, "or not at all", what you are saying is that systemic violence is not violent enough to warrant physical violence to end it. Which shows that you don't know much about slavery at all.

This is essentially the reason many have considered GoT as an endorsement of the status quo against any revolutionary violence. Because the message seems to be that no matter how heinous the systematic oppression and violence inherent in a prevailing system, violence that tends to disrupt the system is always worse than it. Only under such a logic can Daenerys’ campaign in Slaver’s Bay be seen as the genesis of a villain. Notice that violence done in accordance with the logic of the status quo (e.g. Robb Stark declaring war to seek revenge which works perfectly in a feudal context) can still be heroic in the show’s portrayal. It is the sort of system-upsetting revolutionary violence that we find in Daenerys’ arc that is being singled out as being of the same species as mass murder. Not the numerous wars fought in Westeros (starting with the War of the Five Kings). Not even the earlier conquests by Aegon and his sisters (which still work within the logic of feudal society). No, it is Daenerys who tried to change the system altogether whose violence is of a special sort, i.e. the sort that should tell us that she is capable of the worst atrocity in Targaryen history. So what is so particularly bad about her violence? Except for the fact that it is meant to overthrow the system completely?

When Robb declares war, everyone cheers because he has “a reason”.

When Daenerys declares war, everyone boos her and call her a villain.

Robb lost his father.

Daenerys was a slave.

They both have justification for their wars, yet Robb is hailed as a hero and Dany as a villain... Is it because Daenerys isn't a man? Sexism plays into why it's okay for Robb to wage war against the South, but it's not okay for a sexually abused, raped young woman who had been sold as a glorified sex slave to wage war against masters, people who enslave entire people and think they get away with it? Lol okay fandom.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Can someone please explain to me how all Valyrians, innocent or otherwise, deserved to be wiped out and the descendants of survivors deserve to be wiped out because Valyria practiced slavery, but also Dany is a mad tyrant for killing literal slavers (from the literal system that Valyria adopted slavery from) while also trying to "turn slavers back into men" on her quest to end slavery? I don't get it. If these people really think Valyria somehow was the one-true-slave-state, shouldn't they be cheering Dany on for using the source of their former power to "redeem" or "atone" for them? idk I just feel like if she were a man these people would be eating that shit up.

Bc it's all just a way to discredit Dany as much as all those sexist hypocrisies against women in the real world serve to discredit women in the moment and build up into its own ready weapon to use against women. Hope this made sense.

Yes, they would eat this up if she were a man bc the irony of Dany doing this has already been a thing in sci fi fantasy of any subgenre or medium: a descendant or active individual of bad actors use the same tools they used to dominate others or do some other sort of wrong ends to save or "fix" and/or "restore" some sort of preferable "world" order. It's been a trope. People mistake Dany's arc for the In the Blood trope:

Characters appear to be able to inherit their parents' personalities, behaviour, and morality, in addition to their physical traits.

or more specifically the Villanous Lineage trope where:

Sometimes, fictional characters inherit their evilness or immorality from their parents. Even initially good characters like the All-Loving Hero can eventually turn evil thanks to this trope. A Knight in Shining Armor is at risk of going insane or over to The Dark Side, if a parent or grandparent was a Villain by Default or member of an Evil Race. Usually, up until The Reveal (which might be delivered in the form of I Am Your Father), the character had a solid reputation, moral compass, and personality, capable of using Heroic Willpower to resist just about any evil supernatural coercion.

Because they already defaulted the entire Valyrians to be almost an inherently and uniquely, amoral, "evil" archfamily when the truth is much more "banal" and nuanced simultaneously.

Most Targs did not "go mad", there were those who were pushed towards paranoia and even fewer to psychosis bc of extreme circumstances, some of them even possibly involving rape (Aerys and Viserys[III], Dany's brother); they did not colonize they just conquered like many other Westerosi houses did, esp the Starks and Ironborn and Reachmen; assimilation into Andal-FM patriarchy to rule it similarly to (but actually several steps further) how ancestors have taken the rule of religious tolerance of several different religions to easier prevent serious uprisings as well as not having that strong of a religious--seemingly--fervor as other cultures.

Avatar
reblogged

FFS, the idea that people in Meereen asked to sell themselves into slavery because of some failure of Dany's as a ruler is a freaking lie. The scene where people ask to sell themselves happens in Daenerys VI ASOS. This is the very chapter in which Dany first takes control of Meereen. She is in power for what? A week? People asking to sell themselves has nothing to do with whether Dany is a good or a bad ruler, because she literally just got there. There hasn't been enough time for things to stabilize or for Dany to do much of anything, for you to be declaring that this is proof that she is a bad ruler.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Slavery is of course an atrocity, one that Daenerys was aware of before her campaign in Slaver’s Bay, but I cannot help but feel that she felt more keenly connected to the cause because of what she went through. At the age of 13, Daenerys was sold to a man at least twice her age, used as a bargaining chip for her brother’s ambition. Viserys, who literally tells her that he’d let the entire khalasar, “all forty thousand men and their horses” rape her if that was what it took to get his army. She was used as no better than a sex slave by her husband at the start of their marriage, and despite the supposed privilege a khaleesi is supposed to have, her quality of life at the start was hardly any better than Irri or Jhiqui’s, both of whom were also used as sex slaves within the khalasar.

Daenerys may not have been a slave in name, did not endure slavery as long as many others had, but she shared a part of their experience for a short, and very traumatizing period of time. It’s no wonder that abolition becomes her cause.

I don't see much wrong with the idea of her feeling more "keenly" that slavery needs to go if she herself has been a slave for however long and for however. For me, it means that it's more passion and real understanding, like when people who lived in the projects here in the U.S. go into NYC tenant housing law as a career. People will advocate for those things that have or continue to have affected them and that doesn't automatically make them self concerned or selfish. Sometimes, as with disabled people and Black people, it is often the only advocation you're gonna get--within the specific context of modern activism. The same people--not all, but often they more often come from marginalized groups--will also try to advocate or support LGBTQIA/queer people, children's rights, abortion rights, feminist projects, etc. even if they are not women or queer themselves bc right is right and wrong is wrong. Because there's a lot of connections and humans fight for or focus on stuff that affects them. We can't fight for some out-of-Earth cause we have no real experience or familiarity with, after all. Meanwhile, you got people who look out for number one and scrounge for every bit of privilege at the cost of others in their socialized group (ahem, Clarence Thomas and AOC).

So, I agree with you but it's also that Dany has a heart, just her herself. There is a direct correlation to self advocacy and advocacy/revolution, they can never be truly separated.

Avatar

There is an enduring sense in the fandom that if you cannot structurally change the entire or major parts of an oppressive status quo, it's somehow better that one does absolutely nothing. Bc you're "messing up the stability of an already stable social order, which proved itself to be the best or most reliable bc it's endured for so long".

And I despise it. Because it essentially means that any effort except a huge, topsy-turvy one where the whole system gets upended or severely so doesn't matter. (At the very least those that don't seem like it.)

Avatar
reblogged

I didn’t think I’d have the energy for this, but here I am.

The sack of Astapor. The most fetishized episode by Dany antis and their indubitable proof that Dany only does good deeds when those deed profit her. She got an army for her trouble, for free! How convenient is that?

I’ll start by pointing out the obvious here: from the moment Dany set foot in Astapor, she was going to do “wrong”, one way or another; either by doing what she did, by doing something else, or by doing nothing at all. There was no way for her to come out of this unsullied. No. Way.

Dany climbed into her litter frowning, and beckoned Arstan to climb in beside her. A man as old as him should not be walking in such heat. She did not close the curtains as they got under way. With the sun beating down so fiercely on this city of red brick, every stray breeze was to be cherished, even if it did come with a swirl of fine red dust. Besides, I need to see.

Astapor was a queer city, even to the eyes of one who had walked within the House of Dust and bathed in the Womb of the World beneath the Mother of Mountains. All the streets were made of the same red brick that had paved the plaza. So too were the stepped pyramids, the deep-dug fighting pits with their rings of descending seats, the sulfurous fountains and gloomy wine caves, and the ancient walls that encircled them. So many bricks, she thought, and so old and crumbling. Their fine red dust was everywhere, dancing down the gutters at each gust of wind. Small wonder so many Astapori women veiled their faces; the brick dust stung the eyes worse than sand. – Daenerys, ASOS

Dany refuses to veil herself to the horrors of the city. She makes herself watch, really watch. And she especially doesn’t “make” herself feel indignant over what she sees just to give herself a justification for tricking Kraznys mo Nakloz. The heat, the dust, the smells, the tap, tap, tap of Arstan’s cane, it all means nagging. Persistent. Intolerable. Dany doesn’t need to seek outrage. What she sees literally gnaws at her. What are her options, here? In broad strokes, she’s got three: leaving with empty hands, pulling the trick she pulled, or honoring the deal made with Kraznys (assuming that Drogon doesn’t go berserk on his own). Each of them is morally problematic: if she leaves without doing anything, she leaves intact a problem that we know would’ve been in her power to fix. I’m not talking about the aftermath, here: sure, that could’ve been dealt with more sensibly, but regardless of what Dany did with Astapor after, regardless of what she should’ve done after, what she did at first, what started it all, was arguably – dare I say – necessary. Any procedure foreseeing results in the longer term (what Tyrion tried to pull off with the slavers in season six, for instance) wasn’t going to save the thousand of infants, unsullieds in training and little boys thrown into bear pits who needed saving right now. Children rolled in honey, blood or rotten fish and given to bears don’t care about what the policies will look like in seven years. If Dany decides to “save” them by buying them, mo Nakloz and his clique will simply replace them with others.

And that’s also the problem, should Dany have bought her unsullieds “honestly” (not to mention, the implications of handing a dragon to slavers.) So she gets an army for free, say antis, how convenient is that? Well, let’s look at Dany’s feelings on the matter of… convenience:

Dany had eaten dog in other places, at other times, but just now all she could think of was the Unsullied and their stupid puppies. She swept past the huge eunuch and up the plank onto the deck of Balerion.

Ser Jorah Mormont stood waiting for her. “Your Grace,” he said, bowing his head. “The slavers have come and gone. Three of them, with a dozen scribes and as many slaves to lift and fetch. They crawled over every foot of our holds and made note of all we had.” He walked her aft. “How many men do they have for sale?”

“None.” Was it Mormont she was angry with, or this city with its sullen heat, its stinks and sweats and crumbling bricks? “They sell eunuchs, not men. Eunuchs made of brick, like the rest of Astapor. Shall I buy eight thousand brick eunuchs with dead eyes that never move, who kill suckling babes for the sake of a spiked hat and strangle their own dogs? They don’t even have names. So don’t call them men, ser.”

“Khaleesi,” he said, taken aback by her fury, “the Unsullied are chosen as boys, and trained—”

“I have heard all I care to of their training.” Dany could feel tears welling in her eyes, sudden and unwanted. Her hand flashed up and cracked Ser Jorah hard across the face. It was either that, or cry.

Mormont touched the cheek she’d slapped. “If I have displeased my queen—”

“You have. You’ve displeased me greatly, ser. If you were my true knight, you would never have brought me to this vile sty.” If you were my true knight, you would never have kissed me, or looked at my breasts the way you did, or

“As Your Grace commands. I shall tell Captain Groleo to make ready to sail on the evening tide, for some sty less vile.”

“No,” said Dany. Groleo watched them from the forecastle, and his crew was watching too. Whitebeard, her bloodriders, Jhiqui, every one had stopped what they were doing at the sound of the slap. “I want to sail now, not on the tide, I want to sail far and fast and never look back. But I can’t, can I? There are eight thousand brick eunuchs for sale, and I must find some way to buy them.” And with that she left him, and went below. – Daenerys, ASOS

I can’t press enough on what her last sentence means. I want but I can’t. Is Dany thinking of Westeros here? Is she thinking of all the lands an army of unsullieds could win back for her? Shall I buy eight thousand brick eunuchs with dead eyes that never move, who kill suckling babes for the sake of a spiked hat and strangle their own dogs? She doesn’t want them. She’s disgusted by them. She’s angry at ser Jorah for putting her in a situation where she has no choice but to act.

And so, she acts. And gain something out of it, as antis never fail to remind us. Yet they brush over the fact that so far, in the books, the unsullieds aren’t in Westeros, winning lands for Dany. They brush over the fact that Dany, despite needing ships as much as soldiers to retake Westeros, dismantled her ships to build a ram, take Meereen and feed people who wouldn’t be of any use to her in Westeros. They brush over the fact that she had another opportunity to plunder a city in ADWD, but refused to do so, even if it effectively cornered her. They brush over so many, many, many facts just so they can pretend that Dany’s good deeds always profit herself.

If the only thing Dany wanted was an army, she didn’t need to free the Unsullied. She already had the whip. The ownership of the Unsullied had already passed to her. She could have just ordered them to kill the masters, and kept them as her slaves. She would have both her dragon back, and get herself a slave army for free. But Dany doesn’t do that. She frees them, because she’s truly trying to help them.

But I know that antis could explain away even that. They would just say that Dany freed the slaves because she wanted to feel “morally superior” or something. Every good deed that Dany does is bad in some way. She can never win.

Avatar
reblogged

Sry ik it bothers u to talk about Dany/Drogo. Trust me, me too. But i have a question anywayb "My sun and my star made a queen of me, he had been a different man, it might have been much otherwise" I don't get that line at all. Dany, even tho she suffers under Stockholm, know exactly that khalessi is a empty title and 'diffrent man' ?! Drogo was (from a character) nothing other than a slaver and mostly a rapist. How could he be any worser? If he had beaten her? Or let his Kos rape her too?!

Avatar

Yes, that’s exactly what she means. 

As we see from Dany VIII AGOT, the only thing that gave Daenerys a nominal sense of power is that she was Drogo’s Khaleesi. Drogo is the one who could protect her from Viserys. Drogo is the one who could enable her to get away with claiming the Lhazareen women under her protection. Drogo is the one she always used to get the male leadership to listen to her. Once his protection was gone, it all fell apart. 

So if Drogo had been a sadistic person, Dany’s life would’ve been even worse. That he deigned not to “share” her with his Kos aka allow his men to gang rape her is acknowledged by Dany herself: 

If the khal died at the hands of some enemy, they lived only long enough to avenge him, and then followed him joyfully into the grave. In some khalasars, Jhiqui said, the bloodriders shared the khal's wine, his tent, and even his wives, though never his horses. A man's mount was his own. Daenerys was glad that Khal Drogo did not hold to those ancient ways. She should not have liked being shared. And while old Cohollo treated her kindly enough, the others frightened her; Haggo, huge and silent, often glowered as if he had forgotten who she was, and Qotho had cruel eyes and quick hands that liked to hurt. He left bruises on Doreah's soft white skin whenever he touched her, and sometimes made Irri sob in the night. Even his horses seemed to fear him. (Daenerys IV, AGOT) 

The threat of gang rape is something Dany is all too aware of, which is why she has to be able to carefully nagivate Drogo’s moods, lest he suddenly allowed his men to rape her (which he could’ve easily done, because as we see here, he has no problem allowing Ko Qotho to rape his Khaleesi’s handmaidens, Irri and Doreah, and Dany wouldn’t have been able to stop him). This quote is also pretty sad because while Qotho is the first to turn on Dany and Haggo obviously does as well, it’s actually Cohollo, whom she considered kind, that actually came close to killing her. 

Remember that Daenerys has a biased viewpoint like most of the other characters, and a normal level of internalized misogyny that is about the same as Sansa or Catelyn’s levels of internalized misogyny. All of these women have been raised to believe that they were born to do their womanly duty (a theme especially prevalent in Catelyn’s POV chapters). Daenerys was raised to believe that Viserys is her True King, that she may have married him if the circumstances were different, and that she has to do everything she says. This mentality only transforms from “my duty is to obey Viserys” to “my duty is to obey Drogo” for the first half of her AGOT arc (and that’s why the evolution in Dany’s mentality is so important, that she slowly comes to realize her own worth and her own ability to gain power). So Daenerys is not objectively aware that it’s fucked up that her slaveowning warlord husband, who also owned HER, was “decent” enough to at least not allow his men to gang rape her and “decent” enough to not sadistically brutalize her. 

The bar for men in the world of ice and fire is very, very low. It’s not even just with Dany either. With Sansa, for example, Sandor can be extremely rough and abrasive with her, and during the Battle of the Blackwater he 1) hid in her room (which is creepy! no matter how gallant people think he is, it’s still creepy and he terrified her because she was trying to seek refuge), and 2) he held a knife against her throat and demanded her to sing to him. Yet a man like Sandor who is openly violent toward her is still 500,000x more tender and gentle and sincere with Sansa because the other men in her life are people like Joffrey Baratheon and Petyr Baelish. So yeah, the bar in ASOIAF for male decency is incredibly low, unfortunately, and what’s worse is that the female characters, especially the youngest ones like Dany and Sansa, are socialized to believe that the bare minimum of decency is some grand form of tenderness and respect. Of course as their attitudes and personalities evolve, they themselves come to realize that the way men treat them is trash. 

Avatar

Also, this line shows how Dany has come to understand that slavery is never ok, even if you have a "nice master":

"Better to come a beggar than a slaver," Arstan said.
"There speaks one who has been neither." Dany's nostrils flared. "Do you know what it is like to be sold, squire? I do. My brother sold me to Khal Drogo for the promise of a golden crown. Well, Drogo crowned him in gold, though not as he had wished, and I . . . my sun-and-stars made a queen of me, but if he had been a different man, it might have been much otherwise. Do you think I have forgotten how it felt to be afraid?" - Daenerys II ASOS

Here, Dany talks about how Drogo was a "nice master" (or at least, she considered that he was good to her) to her. However, that doesn't change the fact that she was owned, that she was at his mercy, that she was a slave. She recognizes that just because Drogo was "nice" to her ("my sun-and-stars made a queen of me"), he could have been worse, he could do anything he wanted to her ("but if he had been a different man, it might have been much otherwise"). And she links this to the fear she felt ("do you think I have forgotten how it felt to be afraid?"). This is a line in which Dany recognizes that slavery is never ok, that it doesn't matter if some masters are "nice", because slavery is a systemic problem, and that even if some masters are nice, they still have the power to do whatever they want to the people they own. So this line is both about Dany thinking about the fear she had of how her situation could have been worse, and about showing how Dany has matured in her understanding os slavery and oppression, of how it's not enough to have a "nice master", how slavery is a system that needs to be torn down.

(Also, I find it interesting that some people in the fandom interpret this moment as Dany being ok with buying slaves. It's exactly the opposite of Dany being ok with buying slaves)

Avatar

I'm afraid the Ironborn economy confuses me. They spit on those who buy things, but they don't buy, how do they get anything? They can't raid that much to support (I think) a million and a half people, they don't produce much food (Theon says the farmers have the hardest life). What, exactly, keeps these islands going?

Avatar

The way to understand the Ironborn economy is to understand that it functions under massive cognitive dissonance: the vast majority of the population actually works for a living, they're fishermen and farmers and miners and merchants and craftsmen, etc. The Iron Islands aren't the richest of the Seven Kingdoms - as I've said before, they're likely the poorest - but they have industry and trade and fishing and some farming.

The issue is that they have this lunatic ruling class that insists that Ironborn absolutely should not be doing any of the productive activity that actually makes the Iron Islands' economy function, and that ruling class has this whole ideology (the Old Way) that gets into the heads of even a bunch of the people who aren't part of the ruling class, such that you have a whole bunch of fishermen who show up to the Kingsmoot and chant along with the rest, because owning a fishing boat means you're a reaver at heart and certainly not some New Way member of the working class.

Avatar

It’s true that the ironborn live under a massive cognitive dissonance built from marking one sort of labor as essentially different and lesser than another, which allows them to continue the practices of reaving and sexual slavery. However...

“Ironborn” were people who were not thralls.

Thralls were people captured from reaving: plundering coastal and even inland locations of precious materials and people made into thralls and saltwives. And the thralls are the ones who did the all the mining, all the farming, most of the crafting.

Reaving was the most prestigious, respected, and sought after labor/role. Fishing is next. 

And thralls weren’t really considered to be ironborn (especially considering how “ironborn” could not be reaved themselves or lose their status/identity).

Two important quotes:

The endless stoop labor of farm and field was suitable only for thralls. The same was true for mining.

and about fishing being important:

The soil of the Iron Islands is thin and stony, more suitable for the grazing of goats than the raising of crops. The ironborn would surely suffer famine every winter but for the endless bounty of the sea and the fisherfolk who reap it.

In AWoIaF, pgs 176-178

Pics:

There is no “working class” in ASoIaF or in any real-life medieval period. Peasants were not working class, but proto-working class.

Marx, Marxists and socialists define the working class as those who have nothing to sell but their labor-power and skills.

Thralls did and could not sell their labor or use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations. There was no systematic room for negotiations. 

They are quite literally only a step above slaves since the ironborn had complete and utter authority over whether they lived or died, and maintained that system through force and religious perpetuation. Their status is similar to female war prizes like Alys Rivers, and in truth, all thralls were war prizes. It defines them.

While unlike “chattel” slaves in that they could own property, could have kids, their kids were not thralls, and married however they wanted (as long as it wasn’t a noble women or some freedman’s wife, etc), they still belonged to ironborn masters and their lives were in their hands directly.

While Yandel says “rights”, a right is a thing that is either granted by the government’s laws OR, like human rights, is an unchanging human guarantee of security and dignity. Thralls had no dignities except what their masters gave them. The real-life industrial working class, though at first unprotected by legal rights, still had protections because they were not seen as possessions brought from force. So it would be far accurate more accurate to say that those described by OP are enslaved laborers with more privileges. 

While the thralls are similar to the industrial working class and it’s safe to say that they are symbolically so, in reality the two are different.

Avatar
reblogged
Anonymous asked:

I am genuinely confused. I don’t argue that Dany wasn’t literally sold to Drogo bc she was. But where was the energy to free slaves before the Unsullied? She had her own slaves as Kaheesi, amongst them her own sec slave, that she did not bother to free.

Not to mention that as of right now Dany is in the process to reimplement slavery by letting people sell themselves, but taxing it for her army. You can’t even argue that ppl are voluntarily selling themselves bc poverty is a cruel motivator.

And I guess we can all agree that she will leave the city to their own devices soon to conquer Westeros just for the time line to work out.

But sure criticism of Dany makes me a anti-feminist

🌱

I would like the anon and anyone who thinks Dany had the power to free any slaves HER WARLORD MASTER/HUSBAND owned and that she somehow profits from making others sell themselves (they did it of their own free will and were nobles!) to read this POST

And unlike when they read the books, actually read that post linked very carefully, and maybe 5 times before commenting.

Avatar
“Three.” Saying it left a bitter taste in her mouth. “The cowards broke in on some weavers, freedwomen who had done no harm to anyone. All they did was make beautiful things. I have a tapestry they gave me hanging over my bed. The Sons of the Harpy broke their loom and raped them before slitting their throats.” (Dany IV ADWD)

When your opponent has no moral conscience; when your opponent is targeting not just soldiers/warriors (the Unsullied) but also innocent freedwomen, weavers, who are just trying to make an honest living with their artisanship; when your opponent engages in rape and murder of innocent freedwomen; how can you in any conscience say that 1) this kind of situation is peaceful and 2) that dealing nonviolently with such an opponent is possible?

How can you deal nonviolently with a group of people that uses wanton violence, including weaponized sexual violence, against civilians, in a so called time of peace? A militant insurgent reactionary group that destroys their businesses and then rapes these women before murdering them? In Rylona Rhee’s case, cutting off her fingers before murdering her in her own home? In Stalwart Shield’s case, butchering him when he was seeking companionship and healing in a brothel and having to target him as a group, feeding his genitalia to a goat before killing him? 

What kind of peaceful land is it, when militant insurgent groups can terrorize oppressed people in such a manner, rape women and butcher soldiers off duty, and they are supported by the elite of the population, who feed them information (like the wineseller, or telling each of the Harpies exactly which freedmen are politically vocal or prosperous business wise)? 

How could Adam Feldman ever have argued that the peace in Meereen was real? What kind of peace is it when freedmen and freedwomen are trying to live their lives, feed their children, make their crafts, play their music, fight for their rights, and they are butchered, raped, and tortured for doing so? 

You lot talk a lot about Dany committing a human rights violation by sanctioning the torture of the wineseller’s daughters (and then ignore that she herself put a stop to it). What about the torture that the Sons of the Harpy engage in––feeding Stalwart Shield’s genitalia to a goat, cutting off Rylona Rhee’s fingers, raping weaver women? 

What nonviolent way is there to properly get rid of a group like that and ensure lasting protections for the freedmen? Is there such a parallel in history where nonviolence has fully worked and shown longevity against an oppressive group? 

Avatar
reblogged

So this is one of the architects of the “Dany will burn King’s Landing and then die to redeem herself” theories. You’ll notice that a crucial cornerstone of this theory is that Dany’s “temper and vindictive streak” are signs that she’ll be willing to enthusiastically sanction violence against civilians and innocents in Westeros. This is then how asoiaf neutrals get her from a path of never using violence against innocents to going trigger happy in TWOW. They need a good path for their faves to be redeemed (Sandor, Jaime, Theon) and for Dany to die, so this is the kind of intellectual dishonesty they engage in. 

Notice that this person’s example of Dany’s “temper and vindictive streak” is her crucifying 163 slavers. While she makes a disclaimer that “slavers deserve anger,” she then makes an implicit slippery slope argument from slavers to “one claimant for a throne fighting another.” 

I do agree that Dany has a temper at times, but that temper only ever comes out against people who harm her subjects or her loved ones. It has never come out against civilians, innocents, or even “fellow claimants to the throne.” 

The idea that Dany was unreasonable in crucifying the 163 slavers because she did to them what they did to 163 slaver children elides that Dany specifically had 163 Great Masters of the leading families of Meereen give themselves up and that she spared the other Great Master families (which was a mistake) and had the bones of the ones she killed interred and sent back to their widows. Moreover, the notion that Dany’s flaws will “come into sharper relief” necessarily relies on the idea that if she’s being violent toward slavers, who knows whom she’ll be violent against next? 

We have so much proof that Dany is overall a very compassionate person who in fact harms her own goals because she has such a tendency for maintaining peace. If Dany allows Jorah to go home and hopes he finds peace even though he betrayed her, in direct contrast to Stannis having Alester Florent burned alive for giving him bad advice, then why is Dany’s hatred of slavers a flaw that will “come into sharper relief?” Unless you believe that anger and hatred of slavers is a flaw (which they do believe, but they don’t want to admit because they don’t want to be accused of slavery apologism), how can you equate civilians, innocents, and “other claimants to the throne” with slave masters? 

Plus, the notion that a teenage girl has to “work to keep her temper and vindictive streak” under control in a series where grown men do far worse against innocents is genuinely amusing. In fact, the whole point of ADWD is that Dany constantly opting for peace with slavers only harms her goals in the long run and is the exact opposite of what her PEOPLE want. Like, if you think Dany was being temperamental and vindictive when she crucified 163 slavers, you’re ignoring what Dany’s people believe. The slaves Tyrion meets want Dany to “smash” the Yunkai’i. Barristan observes a freedman beat up a slaver who praised Harghaz, the man who tried to slay Drogon. Do you really think her people are trembling in fear of her “temper and vindictive streak?” 

At the end of the day, no matter how much obnoxious book fans like this claim they’re smarter than the showrunners, they regurgitate the show’s idea that “if you use violence against slaveowners, eventually you’ll be so far gone that you’ll use violence against innocents and civilians.” Wrapping it up in fancy language doesn’t change that this is what people who subscribe to the “Dany burns KL” theory believe. There is no proof that Dany’s ~evil vindictive streak~ (which doesn’t exist, by the way, responding to an act of war as a queen and enacting justice against those who kill your people is not vindictive no more than YOUR faves doing the same is vindictive) will impact innocents and civilians. Stop acting like being hateful toward slavers is a flaw or a sign that someone will go mad. 

🐢 is a real piece of work. Any interaction with them that argues against their ideas, or even a correction to things they got wrong causes them to block you. The truest definition of a “neutral”. 🙄

Avatar
laurellerual

My favorite thing is how people who say Dany is going to go mad and burn down King’s Landing in a killing spree often think this is a clever and innovative reversal of expectations. When “Unstable Powered Woman” is one of the most established and mundane narrative tropes out there.

The only version of the story in which Daenerys could blow up King’s Landing is if it’s an accident.

She doesn’t know about the wildfire deposits around the city so all it takes is one spark of misplaced dragonfire and the whole city could explode.

Or perhaps JonCon could be responsible for this explosion. He knows about the wildfire, has ptsds connected to bells, is infected with a disease that drives people insane, and may soon discover that his second chance with Aegon is built on a lie.

But I can see the lords of Westeros who weren’t there to witness the event heeding their prejudices and becoming convinced that the cause of the destruction is clearly the hysterical power hungry woman, daughter of the mad king, with dragons and an army of barbarians and slaves.

I think Cersei, JonCon, and Aegon will destroy KL in TWOW even before Dany gets there. Honestly there just isn’t enough time in the books for Dany to have conflicts with those three, plus Euron and Victarion, and still participate in the War for the Dawn. And mind everyone, it’s highly unlikely Dany won’t get to Westeros until the very end of TWOW. So considering that, it’s even more ridiculous to think she’ll personally go head to head with each of those conflicts. Especially when Aegon and JonCon are so close to KL and how easy it would be for them and Cersei to depower and possibly eliminate each other.

I see your point. And I agree that Cersei won’t be a problem anymore when Dany lands at Westeros.

But I’m not that sure about Aegon and JonCon, because of the ‘slayer of lies’ and ‘mummer’s dragon’ prophecy

Yes, I feel if anyone will get out of the destruction of KL (I don’t think the whole of KL will be destroyed, more like half, if that) still empowered it will be Aegon.  I’m not at all convinced Cersei will get out of TWOW alive.  I know people are convinced she will and travel back to Casterly Rock, because GRRM has said we’ll see Casterly Rock in the books, but there are other ways of seeing Casterly Rock other than through Cersei’s POV.  For instance, it’s far more likely that we’ll see it from Tyrion’s POV IMO, or even in a prologue or epilogue.  I don’t however think that Dany and Aegon are going to fight each other unless Aegon initiates it by doing something horrible.  Dany’s going to love learning that she has a relative who is alive.  Not too sure how Dany will “slay” Aegon’s “lies”, but it could be as easy as the dragons not accepting him for whatever reason (I do believe he is a Blackfyre, but sometimes dragons are picky, like them denying Quentyn but loving Brown Ben Plumm).

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Why a lot of sansa fans are simping for Aemond and claiming him a tragic character? Isn't hypocrisy when they pretend that Daenerys is not a tragic character and never has been a victim in her life ? while saying Aemond is a poor sad boi and the victim of luke when he literally attacked rhaenyra's children? Isn't sheer hypocrisy that they will claim everything Daenerys does in the book is a sign of madness and darkness while excusing Aemond's crimes and making a joke of them , laughing at Luke death , house strong and the riverlands genocide. Aemond is a tragic character when goes in his way burning everything, Daenerys is mad tyrant and a slaver when she goes on her way freeing slaves

I answer the question HERE. But I don’t mention Dany, so I will say here that yes it is hypocrisy. 

And the hypocrisy points out/reveals the working misogyny against Dany, Rhaenyra, and Arya.

Because Aemond goes out and burns entire fields just to prove a point and rage, rapes a woman, kills an unarmed, fleeing child on dragonback, calls Rhaneyra misogynist terms several times....and Dany, who kills disgusting slavers who already nailed several children just to intimidate her, is the evil one?! Please.

Avatar
In the village of Lhazarene, Dany is appalled by the rape and slaughter that she's seeing. Khal Drogo is moving, he’s taking his khalasar towards the sea to begin the conquest of Westeros, but it's quite a way to the sea and, of course, they have to be fed and find a way to get ships to take them across. Slaving is one of the ways the Dothraki earn money, although they don't look at it as earning, they look at it as an exchange of gifts. The Dothraki do not actually believe in buying and selling in the same way as the more mercantile civilizations of the West… Dany can't enact the idea of “don't take slaves”, but what she does there is saying “I'll take the slaves. I'm the queen, all the slaves belong to me.” and in that way she can extend some protection over the women who were being raped.

- George R.R. Martin, Game Of Thrones DVD

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net