i blame the show for the glorification of incest house because💀

the blonde haired blue eyes who came from a society that exploited valyria so much to the point of annihilation

the people who got their dragons by sacrifing innocents(those huge weapons of mass destruction)

the blood purity closer to god than men family?

they are a critique to eurocentrism?

or daenerys who is a great example of whyte saviorism

also the concept of seeing someone as other is not something that exists solely on european societies(islamic colonialism,persian colonialism,mongolian colonialism,japanese colonialism,chinese colonialism)

it also exists in countries that didn’t colonize(eastern europe for example)

the targaryens are not some opressed group,they have conquered the seven kingdoms using their weapons of mass destruction,they also never done anything for the poor or the smallfolks(considering that it was the smallfolks who k*lled the dragons)

house targaryen is a noble house from feudalism(a privileged class)who exactly like the starks only cares for themselves and their interests

First, Westeros is a fictionalized version of England and most Northwestern European medieval societies that uses mostly English history (War of the Roses, the Anarchy, William the Conqueror, the English Anglo Saxon kingdoms before the Norman Conquest). You didn't know this? It's literally what it's being modelled after...dude?!! Yes, this is Euro-centered!!! Also, "blood purity" and "closer to god than men" has always been not really believed in the way or level you seem to imply. Jaehaerys created the Doctrine for propaganda sake and get the Faith off the Targs' back. And, as you yourself stated, as one of the feudal houses of Westeros, the Targs reflect a common aristocratic trend of using godlikeness (the Gardners are son, so are the ironborn) of legtimizing their places in society, but with Jaehaerys we see less actual belief in that origin and more pragmatic use of ideological phenomena of the land he is ruling. Thereby, we can say that through the Targs, we are studying Westerosi feudalism and seeing how truly "backwards" the Westerosi customs are when we especially realize that the more the Targs assimiliate through the years so that their women lose power and agency, the weaker the house itself gets--even after they lose their dragons. In andal/Seven patriarchy, the Targs lost their way towards power, yes. So it is through the Targs' change into the fabric they bought that we measure and see in stark relief how backwards and oppressive the fedualist system Westeros and a lot of the ASoIaF world has. And the Targs aren't imperialists of Westeros, you are suing that word hella wrong. They are ordinary conquerors. If they weren't the lords would not be able to practice their customs as freely as they do.

Secondly, out of the thousands of years of non-Targ-unified rule where every singer Westerosi kingdoms were in constant warfare, there was been actual peace in "Westeros" for 210 or so years. Again, they ruled for 283 years. And after they are gone, what happens? Another civil war, the War of the Five Kings, from an era barely held together by people other than Robert, the king, himself who wanted to just fuck and fight his way to his own death.

In those 1000s of pre-Targ years of war mongering, the lords of Westeros have actually been much more of a menace to the smallfolk than the Targs have...have you ever actually heard a Stark, a Barathon, a Martell, a Arryn make declarations banning certain predatory practices at least in their own lands the way Alysanne and Rhaenys did (rule of thumb, right of first night, rule of six)? And it was a Andal-descent Westerosi, Tywin, who rolled back Aegon V's sincerely pro-peasant laws once he got to become Hand. It was Jaehaerys that built roads to connect different major areas, which indutibly helped travel for everyone, not just the nobles. It was Alysanne who got him to clean up the sewer sysytem a bit more for the smallfolk of KL. All either with selfless intentions OR with another self serving intent, but still by contrast, what did the other lords and ladies do for the smallfolk? Of any sort of intent?

So, no, the Targs are not exactly the same as the Starks. They're more similar to the Martells, really, in terms of how othered they are. And no, the Dornish, sociologically and politically, the Dornish are not "Other", but they are seen as "foreign". There si no system of oppression against them, either.

You also have a very narrow view of dragons, very similar to how the Seven see dragons as just evil. GRRM symobolically sees fire & very cleansing and purifying...as does many cultures. It's not all ""destruction". You ironically prove the point when you think this way, since in Cristian, esp Protestant--based soceities, fire tends to be invoked or thought of negatively. So do dragons. Very Eurocentric.

Thirdly, I love how you try to argue Dany is a white savior. She is not, you've been watching too much Game of Thrones. Not only is Essosi and larger ASoIaF slavery based on class instead of a the sort of "race" that exists in a modern era and slaves in Essos can be of any color, Dany is not disengnuous in her desire and passion to free all the slaves of Essos and become a true compassionate leader. And if you read the books, you will need to revisit them and stop listening to stupid videos on Youtbe that refuse to use book evidence or really just plain old logic to explain away their misogyny against Dany. Dany does use the history of her ancestors as her strength as well as to teach her what not to do.

Definition of a white savior:

Therefore, even if she wanted to, Dany can never be a white savior.

---Interlude---

Maybe you got confused, because how could the valyrians exploit the valyrians (unless we're talking the class divide, but then we'd be talking about class, not race, and no there was no slavery based on race in Essos. ever.)? 🤨

---End---

Fourthly, and yes, within the context of Westeros, the Targaryens are an cognitive if not a social Other. An eternal foreigner of sorts.

This is the definition of the "Other"ing:

No one is saying that they are a systematically oppressed group, but they aren't treated as entirely human all the time either by fans nor those in Westeros AND fans tend to treat the Andal-FM ideological system as the default human one. Precisely bc of their strong heritage and present connection to magic. Westeros is dominantly Seven of the Faith, or the fictional version of Catholicsm. The Faith (of the Seven) is largely anti-magic and is the only religon in the known world that claims to not use or depend on magic. Magic is considered unnatural and evil. There is also no proof or indication that any of the Seven gods are real. Let that sink in. The religions of Rholor, the old gods, etc, all have traces of magic use AND people have wielded magic of a kind proven to actually work and shape the world around them.

Though the Targs have ruled for 283 years, they have had to abandon most of their past Valyrian customs--all except sibling marriage--bc they decided to assimilate as closely as they could to Andal culture and adopt the Seven religion to appease those they ruled. Still, because they have access to mysterious beings who they cannot control, their family is the most recent to come out of Essos, they are markedly different-looking to the point that they look almost inhumane to many Westerosi (no matter how pale, purple eyed, and white-gold-haired reminiscent of blonde-blue-eyes), AND the memory of Visenya and Rhaenys being competent and powerful women in their own right, the Seven of the Faith largely has always considered the Targs as "strange", then "mad".

Yes, even before Daenerys exited the Targs, mainly the women, were seen as a different alien group. The Targs of F&B and before that AWoIaF are not "better" than Dany--that wasn't even the damn question or the point in the first place!--they are there to contextualize her personal development and narrative importance. She makes them matter, of course, but she had to come from somewhere and draw her meaning of self somewhere. She does not, in the text, too, ignore or completely divest herself of her family legacy, she has favorites and is very proud to be a Targ. Her dragons, which are necessary for the Long Night, come from her blood connection to this house...and no there has been very little proof that a non-Valyiran-descent could ride or bond with dragons, so for the Targs, yes blood actually matters a great deal.

Look, the Targs shaped Westeros and even created a few of its current institutions for better or worse. It's not "glorification" if you're just describing what is written in the actual text. The series is not built for any house, nor is as haunted by any house but the Targs. The Starks are a second.

honestly after the daenerys is not a whyte savior argument(when that’s obvious that her story will go there esp after she profited off slavery)it was obvious that regardless of what i say you will still support this house and find justification for them

and there was a war of five kings after the literal mad targaryen king died?we know that the war was started by the fact that joffrey was a bastard(we also know that baelish was involved)because to be honest when the targaryen ruled they never had civil wars or tyrants(aegon the unworth,rhaenyra and aegon,the mad king,maegor the cruel,daemon)

i don’t love the stark and i do believe they are also glorifed(for no reason)just like the other houses they represent why feudalism and monarchy is f*ckef up

and to your statement about finding dragons dangerous eurocentric is wrong

unsurprisingly not everyone liked dragons

A)

babe, i am not the one who refuses to read books💀.

You sound like a person who'd benefit from reading these two posts showing how Dany never profits or uses slavery...from brideoffires:

POST #1

POST #2 they go into why you're just wrong about Dany somehow making slavery her new cashcow.

But since you seem to be satisfied with being very intellectually challenged, you probs won't. Doesn't matter, I am very satisfied this will be out for posterity.

B)

So this post on the erroneous take about ASoIaF just about "feudalism bad!" [by dragonseeds] will also help.

"War of the Five Kings" and "Robert's Rebellion" are two different wars...friend, you good? You need some saline? No, not all wars are the same.

Bro is making as if the Dance were two separate events by separating Daemon from Rhaenyra in their list💀. that's one war, bro. Aegon the Unworthy (IV) didn't actually go to war, he failed utterly before anything could happen, so no war there. BFR. But if you're talking the Blackfyre Rebellion, sure. You still refused to check out my link, si I'll just have to post it as pic here, it's critical to flout your stupid argument:

Once again, much different and much less war than when the 7 kingdoms existed as autonomous kingdoms.

The second war after the Targs were gone (Robert's Rebellion) was supposed to end the evil Targ rule...yet only a 1 decade or so later, Robert dies and neither he nor Tywin prevented a war, all w/o an Targ help. Again, you may want to refer to the years of peacetime and the calculations for that I linked before.

I also find it funny who you completely ignored my stuff about the Targs shaping and benefiting Westereos outside of the blanket statement you tried to make for them...perhaps bc you can't defend yourself bc you never read the books? and you thought going by the sexist-writtenly show Dumb & Dumbee wrote for you small pea-brain meant your brain grew three sizes the day season 8 premiered.

C)

You also could have clarified what you mean by them "not liking" dragons, bc that is vague enough to be a catch all. The Faith didn't like dragons bc they were magic and out of their control. And the lords were wary precisely bc they didn't have control over them themselves. You realize that some wanted to intermarry with the Targs to have access to their power, dragons and ordinary political. Have you read of Rhaena and the Lannisters? Doesn't seem like it.

Also, the Seven people "don't" like the old gods for the same reasons above as well as being generally xenophobic towards anythign that is not Seven-based. You really seek to undermine a lot of the themes of ASoIaF, don't you? It's a good thing I already provided links to other posts where I explained why to think the Targs uniquely evil or amoral when the Westerosi lords themselves are peachy-keen or morally superior to the Targs, otherwise we'd be having a stupid-off.

bro, we're talking dragons...as in their fire...as in their fire will be used in the "song" (war) between "ice" (the Others) and "fire" (Dany and the dragons).....you're being obtuse and you think dragons are not going to important to the REAL war that's coming, I feel very bad for you. your pro-Westerosi flaw is showing.

Learn to have some nuance, life will be more fun for you.

finally, this is what GRRM says:

Source (May 1, 2001)

Also, the Doctrine was not blood purist bc it never FORBADE Targs from marrying non Targs...nor even actively nor passively discouraged Targs from marrying "out". There was never any legal restriction or clause that said that Targs could not marry certain peoples AND there was no clause forbidding a Targ to marry a non-Targ due to an idea that non-Targs were "impure" or had "unclean" blood. The Targs married out more often than the Starks!

Many Targs married outside of their families (arranged or elsewise--and in some arranged ones, still came to value and or genuinely love their non-Targ partners) or had sex with/were attracted to them:

Blood purity constricts marriage and relationships...not opens them!

The Doctrine was for the Targs to safely practice their custom of incest marriage similar to how the Andal-FM Westerosi practiced their own incest marriages, which all existed--marriage I mean--to consolidate resources, titles, and wealth to specific families. And under the excuse, as I mention, under the already present Andal-FM practice of using the gods' intervention as their reason.

Another example of (creative) assimilation, rather than colonization or oppression of a people from the Targs!

One thing that Dany/Targ antis say is that the Doctrine of Exceptionalism is proof that Targaryens are blood purists… but it really isn’t. First, because it wasn’t even created with any “blood purist” motivation. The motivation for the creation of the doctrine was simply because Jaehaerys and Alysanne got married, but were afraid that the realm wouldn’t accept their marriage because of the Faith of the Seven. So they had to create a whole propaganda to make people believe that the Targaryens were a different kind of people because they rode dragons, and that the gods allowed them to marry each other. At the end of the day, the Doctrine of Exceptionalism was just an excuse that Jaehaerys and Alysanne created so that they could get married, and so that the Targaryens could keep following Valyrian traditions, without getting into conflict with the Faith. And the only thing the Doctrine of Exceptionalism did was to allow incest between Targaryens, but at no point did the Doctrine ever dictate that Targaryens must only marry each other, that they must only marry those of Valyrian blood, or that they should never mix with other people (and indeed, Targaryens married outside their family and outside of Valyrian families many times). The Doctrine has nothing to do with forbidding mixing of blood or with “keeping the blood pure”, the Doctrine simply allowed Targaryens to marry each other. The doctrine had nothing to do with “blood purity”.

Why wouldn't a Valyrian wedding be just as legitimate?

So you can take oaths and marry according to the Old Gods, let the Ironmen worship Chthulu the Drowned God, allow followers and priests/priestesses of R'hllor in Westeros, respect Dornish cultural specificities, but you draw the line at anything Valyrian related huh?

Hey do you guys know how Anglicanism started? Because Valyrian rites are much older than Anglicanism in regards to Catholicism and thus just as legitimate if not more.

Of all the religions created by GRRM, the Faith of the Seven seems like the most retrograde, especially since it's basically meant to be fantasy!Catholicism:

Which also means the Faith is highly corrupt or easily corruptible.

Stop claiming you're arguing from a "real medieval perspective" and look up all the disputes between kings and popes in European history. Read about Philippe IV of France aka Philippe le Bel aka the Iron King. A fictionalized account of his reign and that of his family can be found in Les Rois maudits (Eng: The Accursed Kings) which influenced GRRM. It's basically the same as ASOIAF except it doesn't have dragons.

But but the Doctrine of Exceptionalism!!! Rhaenyra just gave it the middle finger like Henry VIII of England did to Catholicism.

That doctrine also only seems to be about incest, not polygamy. The High Septon might have condemned Maegor's polygamous marriages, but it doesn't seem like he could dissolve them. (And again it was the Hightowers throwing a tantrum.) He and Aegon I weren't the only polygamists either.

The point is: it doesn't matter what you believe is disgusting and shouldn't be - that's another topic entirely. What matters are the rules of this world and the possibilities to bend and break them. And that's an interesting story.