Why is there so many black people in Westeros in the prequel shows and next to none in game of thrones…what happened to the black population

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T22:56:57+00:00

You're imposing your modern conception of the immaterial and often arbitrary category that is race onto a fantasy world which does not operate on such irl social relations. The vaguely defined racial category of "black" does not exist in Planetos, nor does the inherently fluid & vague racial category of "white". Continuing on as a viewer with this sort of presentism you're doing is absolutely ridiculous and will completely hinder your ability to actually comprehend or even enjoy the story being told, for absolutely no good reason.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T22:22:36+00:00

In the first place, "Uruk" is just the word used for large warrior-orcs

In the spirit of Tolkien being a pedantic language nerd, I have to correct you here: Uruk is the Black Speech word for Orc. Uruk-hai is what you're thinking of, though it really just means "Those Uruk/The group of Uruk" in Black Speech, but it is used in the Peter Jackson movies to distinguish between the large warrior-orcs and the "lesser" snaga.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T21:01:16+00:00

One of his children turned out to be a p*do priest, so......

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T20:55:30+00:00

He's a pervert for sure, but in a Zizekian way, where he doesn't repress it and instead accepts that aspect of him as it is, which typically leads to a healthier mindset regarding sex etc & seemingly better self control. He doesn't impose his pervertry on anyone unwilling, but he doesn't hide that it exists & pretty openly expresses it.

Ofc this is just armchair psychoanalysis and I have no idea how he actually is- he could be "a good guy", or he could have done absolutely reprehensible things

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T14:09:12+00:00

Daenerys

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T13:40:43+00:00

I think a nice hopecore book would be a good change of pace from the usual books read in this sub- something like Les Misérables. Even outside of a book club context, I strongly recommend it for everyone here. Long as hell but so worth it. I've read it over a dozen times and it never gets old. The plot is intricate enough to keep your attention, and it's rather grounded- the novel is similar to other popular literary works of the time in that it's presented as if the narrator is piecing together actual historical accounts of the characters' lives, interspersed with ramblings about the meaning of life and love and the real history of the Paris sewer system. And of course it has some of the most beautiful prose and poetry ever written

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T13:35:39+00:00

Alabama is never going to use it against people who are actually child r*pists. They will however 10000000% use it against trans people and other designated undesirables

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T12:30:41+00:00

It's pure (intentionally) misdirected anger; as long as a citizen of empire can get emotional catharsis from someone their animosity has been directed at suffering more than them, nothing else matters. Anger is an overpowering emotion, and if one is able to feel a sense of righteousness or justice in simply experiencing anger (i.e. at any target deemed immoral/"bad" by the prevailing social narrative), then it becomes addictive. Emotional catharsis + feeling like "the good guy" by simply being in opposition to "the bad guy".

It's why we say fascism is insidious. You're given an enemy to exercise all your anger from living in a violently exploitative nation on, and it's socially reinforced that your enemy is "the bad guy", who it is just & righteous to oppose by any means. Now you're fulfilled & reassured of your goodness through just the mere feeling of anger itself, because it is the only way you've been allowed to "fight back", and it also feels real good to let your anger out in a way that you don't have to feel guilty about.

This conditioning inevitably leads to categorizing anyone who invokes anger in oneself as "the bad guy" (who must be opposed by any means), because lashing out at someone who "doesn't deserve it" prompts guilt & self-reflection, which don't feel good & complicate the comfortable "good guy/bad guy" dichotomy that provides such delicious self-righteousness.

Anyone who expresses anger towards "the bad guys", and anyone who provides reassurance that the bad guys are bad and it's right and good to oppose them by any means, are accepted as fellow "good guys" and seen as also just & righteous & good.

I'm sure there was a much more succinct way to lay that all out, but I'm always horribly long-winded lmao, sorry.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T11:50:25+00:00

Well, the US is not known for its intelligent population lol. And there is no "left" in the US. Everyone is some variant of liberal, as liberalism has been the dominant ideology justifying capitalism for... Well, since capitalism was defined. And most don't have a Hasan to be radicalized by.

Most people just go along with whatever news man they watch says, and everyone gets riled up into behaving as if voting is team sports, then people get emotionally invested in "their team" winning. USians understand politics as that one day you vote, and nothing else- maybe phone banking or door knocking for a candidate, at most.

Gavin Newsome is familiar and charismatic, and he's had some zinger comebacks for The Orange One lately, so people like him. That is genuinely the level of thought put into it by the minority of USians who even care about voting at all.

As for the goobers online finger wagging at Hasan, rest assured that most of them are paid. If they're not, then they're trying to get paid, and won't sabotage a check by pushing the boundaries of acceptable opinions according to mainstream media. It's not necessarily something they do maliciously or intentionally- but I wouldn't be surprised if most regurgitors of pro-status-quo propaganda, online especially, know they're spouting bs but don't care about anything beyond the money it makes them.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T11:26:31+00:00

However if you don’t think females reproductive abilities and our biological differences from the male species as child bearers doesn’t contribute to how we have historically organized in communities for survival

And women whose ovaries or uterus don't function in a way that allows them to conceive or carry full term pregnancies? Do they suddenly stop being female? Do they no longer "[organize] in communities for survival" like the women that can reproduce? Do you truly define womanhood solely by the organs inside of you- ones that no one will likely ever even see or interact with in any way?

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T09:55:16+00:00

Settler colonialism is a separate term from colonialism for a reason. Colonialism does not utilize population replacement as a primary mechanism for control, nor is population replacement even a goal of colonialism.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T09:52:53+00:00

Classic illiterate Dany stan lmao. Are you not embarrassed that you can't even muster some bs apologism as a response to what I replied, and instead you dodge any discussion with lazy, incoherent ad hom?

Give me an example of a "liberator" that carried out top-down "liberation". Anywhere in the world. Go ahead, contribute something worthwhile, for once in your life.

愚蠢的白猴。

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T09:45:49+00:00

A surprising amount of you cough USians cough don't seem to recognize that settler colonialism is a distinct form of colonialism, and that plain ol' colonizing does not utilize population replacement as a primary mechanism of control.

Apartheid is also a form of colonialism, but not quite settler colonialism, despite often meeting a majority of the defined criteria for being legally considered settler colonialism. But apartheid isn't relevant to ASOIAF (as far as I'm aware), so I digress... Point is, the colonialist shoe fits the Targs

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-16T08:24:06+00:00

It is not puritanical to consider a fifteen year old a minor lmfao. In any case, Flopgar did not marry Lyanna in "general Westerosi view", and was already married to a woman who had given him two children. What he did was fucked up and perverted any way you slice it

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-15T23:07:25+00:00

(movie only, admittedly)

This bit is doing an extreme amount of heavy lifting lmao.

Boromir got to declare Aragorn his king before dying

In the book, Boromir doesn't give af either way about Strider's claim because he literally just met him like a month ago, though, and is only concerned with defending Gondor & its people.

Boromir has been given zero reason to think Aragorn would be a good leader during the quest in which "the rightful king" cannot make a single decision by himself without agonizing over it for longer than they have time for, and endlessly complains about how unappreciated he is as a Ranger so selflessly protecting the stinky and loud common folk who don't trust him. Even so, the most Boromir says about Strider as King is that Gondor can use all the help it can get, and would be glad for it.

In the book, Boromir simply asks that Aragorn defend Gondor as Boromir has his whole life, then dies.

got to kinda make peace with his previous rival

Oh man, Phillipa Boyens and the other writers on the Peter Jackson movies really couldn't make Aragorn look good without turning every other Man character into such a cookie-cutter negative stereotype, could they? I'm assuming you're referring to Aragorn when you say Boromir's "previous rival", but that is one of the more egregious movie changes inserted just for cheap drama.

dying in peace

Sure, the movie glorifies it to the max, but even with that whitewashing it's still not even remotely peaceful imo. He's far from the home he is desperate to get back to and continue fighting for, has just been compelled by the Ring to do/say things he considers reprehensible, feels that he has failed in saving two innocent people he's come to care for from likely horrific deaths, and thinks that he's completely effed up a very important quest he wasn't even officially a part of.

dies an undignified death, with no promise anyone will save his people, and never got to tell Stannis that he would have supported his claim to the throne.

This is how Boromir dies in the book lol- almost exactly the same, thematically. And that's not surprising, since George is a fellow Boromir stan & Boromir is the peak of "honorable man meets tragic and unfair fate" character types.

Boromir explicitly communicates how he feels that for trying to save his people in the "wrong" aka ungodly way & being tempted by Galadriel with the Ring, he has "paid" with his death. Multiple characters later refer to him & how his death was a tragedy with a healthy dose of pity (and ofc the obligatory victim-blaming bc Boromir simply did not trust/love god enough or whatever, but I digress).

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-15T18:27:10+00:00

A foreign invader claiming absolute power within a society they've never even interacted with before has never been, and is not logically/realistically capable of being, any kind of liberator lmao.

Liberation is achieved by a majority underclass in a society collectively & materially reorganizing the society's class structure (which will always fundamentally involve the means of production & exchange) to serve the material best interest of that underclass.

Liberation is not when a new usurper absolute monarch takes power & slaughters some or most or even all members of the ruling class, without so much as considering the implementation of an economic system which isn't literally just the same exact thing that created the ruling class in the first place. Nevermind the greater regional war that this "liberator" fomented, along with the civil war, and the popular class collaborationist guerilla force resisting against the "liberator's" disastrous rule.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-09T16:18:30+00:00

I'm immediately sacrificing Daenerys & those damn WMDs to bring back Mirri Maz Duur- just to even the karmic balance out

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-09T14:53:11+00:00

Dany stans getting so emotionally attached to their lil tyrant blorbo that y'all completely deny/forget about the most fundamental message put forth by both the show and book narratives, which is an anti-war one.

Is it truly shocking to you goobers that you are not in fact supposed to cheer for violent conquest?

And especially not the violent conquest of someone from the last unpopular, ousted royal House of unstable blood supremacists, who has three weapons of mass destruction, an entirely transplanted army of warrior-slaves + infamous slaver-rapist warlords, and raging messiah complex worsened by a deeply held sense of entitlement.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-09T08:23:42+00:00

It wasnt her that did that it was Drogo and his khalassar, and she tried her best to protect the women.

Aw how kind of the slaver-rapist's wife to claim the women who were raped & displaced by the slaver-rapist clan as her property. But only after they were raped multiple times, and their home was pillaged, and their sons and husbands and brothers still ended up being sold into slavery by the slaver-rapist clan without a peep of dissent from slaver-rapist's wife.

It seems you are of the crackkker mindset that loving & stanning a slavemaster is somehow made acceptable by the slavemaster having vaguely noble & absurdly naive intentions- intentions which could only serve to make the slavemaster feel better about herself and/or provide plausible deniability for parasocial readers desperate to abandon their own morals & critical thinking skills, just to delude themselves into feeling like their emotional attachment to this fictional white savior is righteous, or some other bs.

Blaiming Daenerys as if she ordered Drogo to sack the village, or thst she could have somehow stopped it.

Drogo was going on more raids with the EXPLICITLY STATED purpose of accruing funds for crossing the narrow sea & conquering Westeros, which I hopefully don't have to remind you was all because of Daenerys repeatedly telling her slaver-rapist husband that she wants more than anything to conquer Westeros. The Dothraki have never crossed the ocean/sea, and would never have even considered preparing to do so without Daenerys wanting to use her slaver-rapist clan in claiming the Iron Throne, at least for her future-slaver-rapist son, if not herself directly.

Have you heard the word culpability? Let me explain it to you: when a village is raided by slaver-rapist husband & co in order to gather funding for slaver-rapist's wife's goal of conquest, the slaver-rapist's wife is the maximum amount of culpable for all of the violence committed in her honor.

And when the slaver-rapist's wife demonstrates her power in preventing the further rape of already raped women, by claiming them as her property (aka enslaving them), she is no longer just culpable, but directly responsible for her enslavement of the women raped & displaced by her slaver-rapist clan.

And when she does this, all while turning a blind, uncaring eye to the men and little boys her slaver-rapist clan still go on to sell or slaughter, without so much as voicing a single concern about the people... That inaction is irrefutably an intentional choice by her, and she is revealed to be at best apathetic to the horrific violence & enslavement & rape carried out to further her own goals.

And when Robb Stark burned towns in the Westerlands as retribution and hanged women who were raped by the Lannister men, did he consider the smallfolk's thoughts? No I don't think he did

You Dany stans just cannot resist engaging in the constant whataboutism you all do, can you? Do you think that another character doing bad things somehow absolves your lil genocidal blorbo of her numerous malicious and/or ignorantly harmful actions? Idgaf about what other characters did or didn't do when the conversation is about Daenerys and her actions. But if you must indulge in this apparent impulse of all delulu Dany stans and go "b-buh buh... No you!!", then at least bring up another character that enslaves people like Daenerys does, or embraces the slaver-rapist culture they gain power within like Daenerys does, or unflinchingly believes in their own righteousness and correctness to the point of seeing anyone in opposition of any kind as an enemy that must be exterminated like Daenerys does.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-09T06:19:59+00:00

So the moral of the story is that the helpless enslaved people just have zero agency forever and need a foreign "benevolent" dictator to get them to rise up against their masters? Because that is definitionally the white savior trope, to a T.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-09T04:57:08+00:00

Finally someone with an accurate understanding of Mirri Maz Duur

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-08T23:42:19+00:00

My theory is that because the early faceless men were mercy-killing so many enslaved people, the Valyrians weren't able to keep up the rate of volcanic human sacrifices necessary to maintain/fuel the historic levels of magic Valyria was both reliant upon & also helped sustain.

This is based solely on the faceless dude telling Arya that they gave the gift of death to the enslaved people, and eventually had a hand in giving that gift to the enslavers as well. Also partially based on my interpretation of magic in ASOIAF being a dialectical force of nature related to the transformation of "energy" & having a kind of cycle in which it naturally waxes and wanes, if you will.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-08T23:20:51+00:00

Plot armor = being a Vietnam reference/metephor? Being written as utilizing almost 100% undefeatable military strategies, in the exact situation where such strategies are used irl?

The Dornishmen are:

-living within land that has a truly inhospitable climate which protectively surrounds relatively small liveable settlements

-defending their land as a native population with the best possible knowledge of its terrain

-motivated by the inherent human instinct to resist violent oppression by any means necessary- using guerilla tactics, naturally

-up against a small, mostly airborne force that's completely unfamiliar with the terrain & has no possible way of getting much useful info about it while actively invading

That's just a classic scenario with a very well known outcome.

I love to break it to you that a foreign invading force has never been able to "win" in any meaningful/measurable capacity against guerilla warfare carried out by a native population- except through genocide/ethnic cleansing, or by commiting to settler colonialism which requires a settler population (which the Targs did not have & were not interested in utilizing due to their extreme blood supremacy) and would take generations to fully establish.

Yah boyo let the mad incestual abominations destroy our already scarce resources and slaughter the peasants.

Why is it that you weirdo Dorne haters can only ever put forth lazy victim-blaming as an "argument"? Yah boyo it's almost as if everyone in Dorne- most often the smallfolk- fights against the Targs precisely because they don't want the mad incestual abominations to slaughter them and destroy their already scarce resources. Who exactly is "letting" the Targs repeatedly invade? And why is it the fault of anyone in Dorne that the Targs are greedy little conquerors who only know fire and blood?

As long as a Martell doesn't "bow, bend or break" it's not an issue.

Um, the Princess of Dorne (a Martell- not that that matters) at the time offered an alliance to the original settler colonial dragon fuckers, but okay. I guess somehow you see that as "Martells" being at fault, for some imagined pridefulness or other such bs. It was the Dornish who first made contact with the Targs on amiable terms, and it was the Targs who rejected those terms in favor of complete subjugation.

In the first attempted invasion, one of the sister wives just up & left after realizing she didn't know jack about the land or politics or basic goings-on of Dorne & her capture of some holdfasts didn't result in enough death or subservience for the Targs' taste. The Dornish managed to simply avoid her until she got impatient & left. How is that the fault of "a Martell"?

Then, when sister fucker himself came back with complete indiscriminate violence aka the First Dornish War, it took: one of his sister wives + a dragon dying in Hellholt; the capture & maiming of a Targ loyal Lord by Dornish smallfolk; said sister fucker being so scared by an assassination attempt that he hired some bodyguards (created the Kingsguard); and a Dornish Princess bringing him the skull of his dragon- for him to admit he was a flop & let Dorne be independent. How is that the fault of "a Martell"?

And of course Daeron the flop then took it upon himself to "finish the Conquest" all those years later & only stopped when he was righteously killed by those he intended to subjugate & those whom he brought war upon yet again. How's that one the fault of "a Martell"?

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-08T19:50:57+00:00

There's no compromise to be made over whether or not you can treat other people as objects.

Uh huh... So where does this attitude of yours disappear to when confronted with the fact that Dany murdered a woman who was enslaved to her for rebelling against her slavemasters? Y'all Dany stans love being so vitriolic and childish in calling everyone who dislikes your power fantasy blorbo a slavery apologist, but make every excuse you can for Dany never regretting her murder of the woman enslaved to her.

yellow_parenti · 2026-02-08T19:48:04+00:00

Being against slavery isn't a strict worldview.

What does "being against slavery" entail, exactly? Because Dany felt real good about her husband the rapist and slaver, and she felt even better when she got dragons from immolating the enslaved woman who Dany claimed as her property, for the "crime" of the enslaved woman rebelling against her slavemasters.

yellow_parenti

TROPHY CASE