#it's just that. arya has a support system. and dany doesn't. and that sucks!! but sometimes...

[atopvisenyashill]

I am so glad you articulated the criticism of Dany crucifying the slavers as a political folly and not a moral folly like listen I am a Dany fan if I could send asks from my sideblog you would know this but I do not believe we are supposed to just brush off the crucifixion like Dany herself isn’t even fully convinced it was the right thing to do. Remembering it she feels sick and has to shut down her doubts and TELL HERSELF it was right. She is an interesting character to me because she can’t stand the compromises she must make to maintain peace AND YET she does want justice and liberation BUT she also hates the suffering and bloodshed of war AND YET she is quick to command violence on impulse. I do think her peace in Meereen was real (big Meereen Knot Essays believer) but all of her internal conflicts lead her to her mistakes. Can’t stand peace but can’t stand war so she just tears herself apart!! It’s tragic! It’s interesting! So much more interesting than an unambiguously heroic Dany who makes no mistakes ever!

Yeah, like....it's certainly morally messy, and I think it's morally more messy because Dany isn't a slave of the Ghiscari like Missandei or an Unsullied like Grey Worm, Red Lamb, etc who is rising up and using violent revolution to liberate the slave class of Meereen - she is a descendant from a foreign, formerly slaving culture that enslaved most of the cultures represented in Meereen, someone of noble birth who has experienced immense suffering but was able to pull herself out of it because of her immense social privilege and magical abilities, using violence in an attempt to liberate those her family had once helped subjugate while...still keeping herself at the top of the pyramid.

There's a lot of mess and contradictions in this situation and I find it much less interesting (as you say) when people paint what Dany is doing here as unambiguously heroic. I know I sound like a broken clock when I say it, but the justification of "well this culture has slavery and slavery is bad" is the exact sort of rationalization many colonial and imperial powers make when conquering. White Americans made it about various Indigenous communities ("oh well the Iroquois had slaves and conquered their neighbors" yeah and white americans had chattel slavery which is objectively worse so what now??), the UK and France used it as a rationale for conquering most of Africa and parts of Asia; there's always this annoying through-line of "well Africans sold themselves into slavery" and I think making this argument that "Well the Ghiscari are brutal slavers" is really similar. And I know people don’t like the dragon/nuke comparison or the imperialism/colonizer comparisons but….what made the genocides of the Americas, and the colonization and imperialism of the 20th centuries stand out from the wars that came before is the sort of hellish combination of nationalism, political schisms, fervent hatred of the Other, and industrial growth. Never before could people amass armies and kill on such a massive scale before. Never before did we have weapons that were so fucking good at killing. Never before did we have the bureaucracy capable of streamlining the process so damn well! (and not for lacking of trying, shout out rome but like...still). I think the dragons are a commentary on that - when someone has access to technology like that, can one person be left to decide if it’s use is good or evil? can one culture not be completely corrupted by their technological advances? can nuclear bombs or weapons Ever be used for good, and if they can be then where is that line drawn? who draws the line? why does that person get to draw the line? I don't think any of this will have a clear answer because that's not exactly how he does things - he's just writing a scenario about this and letting us analyze why it happens on our own.

So it’s like okay the Ghiscari and Dothraki are slaving cultures...Sacking a city is still a violent, destructive thing to do and she does it three times including to a city she is attempting to rule. The moment she had an inkling she might be ruling Meereen, she should have rethought her actions there so she doesn’t start off alienating a large group of people. Coming in as a stranger from a culture who used to be slavers and constantly making comments about how much she hates the culture she’s ruling over is....not great! Dany going back and forth between "I hate these people I was right to crucify them" and "there's too much violence amongst these people I have to stop the violence" is why the issues in Meereen become so complicated. Does she have reasons for acting this way? Yes! It doesn't change the outcome of her actions!

What's interesting about her is that as you say, she does realize this conflicting dichotomy within herself! That’s like, the entire issue she’s facing in Meereen - she wants peace because she knows that’s what’s best for the people there and yet struggles to control her boredom and temper because she is too traumatized to sit still any longer. She’s associated the constant move, the constant fight, the violence and blood and death and destruction with righteousness, justice, goodness, and we can SEE it’s having a negative effect on her psyche, her emotions. She’s not HAPPY by the ending of adwd, she’s not self actualized, she’s just hardened herself completely in the face of this unending monster of a campaign. She wants off this ride and yet she’s unable to find a way out. I don’t think we’re meant to cheer her on here!! SHE is barely cheering herself on here!!! It’s a burden to her!!!!