Everyone hates the Seanchan but me?

[WhiskyJack]

Just gonna put this out there, but people don't really have rights by default, the only rights we have are those we take or are given.

 

It just so happens that many of us on this site are lucky enough to live in countries where our governments give us "rights".

 

 

 

And what exactly is this government?

[Tom Sawyer]

There's nothing positive about the Seanchan. They're fascist Empire built on slavery and oppression. Rand not balefiring the entire civilization is the worst decision he's made in the books yet. Everything about them just disgusts me.

[Sharaman]

This appears to be a clash of world ideals. On one side we have Cut Strand (and sharaman?) who support a totalitarian rule/dictatorship. Free will should only belong to the some leaders, everyone else is just a tool to be used. Some classes of property can live their own lives in their free time when they are not necessary for some other task. An ant colony.

 

 

On the other side we have people who want a free society where people are not property to be bought and sold.

 

 

I can see why they wanted to control this power.

 

Aren´t they abusing it too? They seem to be doing the exact same thing with the power that they claim to be trying to avoid.

 

 

 

And if the Seanchan way of doing things is as good as some people seem to think, why do they too have rebellions?

 

Speaking personally, I'm a libertarian. However, I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of what we're being shown as pre-industrial societies. How far removed are they from the ideal? (For me, that's a society where everybody's negative rights are protected). In that context, I think the Seanchan actually offers a better deal than most of the WoTland societies, we see.

 

In large part, the hereditary da'covale is no worse off than the hereditary serf. You could even argue that he/ she has more upwards mobility in that he/she can rise to so'jihn levels, which is impossible for a Commoner in Tear, or a "boy" in Far Madding.

Also, nobody (except perhaps the Empress MSLF) is above the law and capable of either ignoring the law or delivering arbitrary judgements (even though the laws may be weird - that is a different matter).

I do also think you need to make the distinctions anyway between the criminal-slave and the slave who is given a lot of power/responsibility and also consider the effect of a pernicious caste-system.

Seanchan rebellions occur either when somebody of high blood tries to seize power, or the puppet-rulers of an area that has been recently "consolidated" tries to escape imperial domination. That has nothing to do with the wishes of the majority. If you ask that question, also ask why the Seanchan subject populations in Westland are by and large, happier.

They offer a better deal to the majority of their subject populations.

[WhiskyJack]

^^I would venture a guess that you are from South...

[yoniy0]

If you ask that question, also ask why the Seanchan subject populations in Westland are by and large, happier.

They offer a better deal to the majority of their subject populations.

You're oversimplifying matters. The people they now rule are citizens of poorly managed / failing nations. You see how the Domani take to the notion of Seanchan overlords - they know they can't win, but it's still important to them to imprint a mindset of resistance on their descendants. So that the occupation will one day end. Further north, or east, we will witness more of that approach and less of that of the average Tarboni/Amadician/Altaran.

[capuga]

Da'covale:

 

It doesn't matter how well treated the da'covale are. They have no choice in their life. Most of them are born into servitude. At least servants can quit if their employers mistreat them. They have some say in their lives. I do not see how this can be defended. Even if you take away they blatantly awful things forced upon these people (requiring them to dance and wear revealing clothing for the pleasure of their masters -- yes this is a form of rape -- and expecting them to commit suicide because their master dies) the fact that they have no free will is despicable. So they live in relative comfort, this doesn't make up for the fact they have no choices in their lives. Would anyone here honestly give up their free will and ability to live their life as they choose? Then why argue that it is OK to force others to give up theirs?

 

Damane:

 

The giant hypocrisy of the Seanchan. Even bigger than the fact that the sul'dam can learn to channel. Their method of dealing with channelers does not remove the threat of the OP being abused for personal gain. It merely shifts who has control of that power. I could see the argument if the Seanchan believed (like the Whitecloaks) that no one should have that kind of power and leased people to keep them from using it for the safety of all. But this is not what they do. They continue to use this power. But instead of the channeler deciding how to use the power, it is the Blood. Are they really any less likely to abuse this power for personal gain? Of course not. The Empress and anyone with damane can channel. They just do it through an intermediary. Having power and being dangerous should not be a crime in and of itself. It should be that person's actions. If you leased an "evil" channeler and gave control to a "good" person (so the evil person could not commit their crimes but their useful power would not be lost) I could understand that. Leasing people for potential crimes is ridiculous. A blademaster is also more powerful and dangerous that most people. Should we cut off the hands of all blademasters because they might use their skills to kill innocent people?

 

I can understand the argument that the positives of Seanchan culture outway the negatives. It could be argued that because the da’covale and damane are such a minority that a higher percentage of the population under Seanchan rule lives a good life than the people in other parts of Randland. That argument makes some sense to me. But actually arguing that the negative aspects are OK does not. Wrong is wrong even if the rest of their rule is positive. And for me, the wrongs are so egregious that it is hard to really think positively of them as a whole.

[WhiskyJack]

We have not seen story play out on Seanchan itself so we don't know how happy population there really is. Recent mutiny in Seanchan (not one but many) might be an indicator.

[WhiskyJack]

Da'covale:

 

It doesn't matter how well treated the da'covale are. They have no choice in their life. Most of them are born into servitude. At least servants can quit if their employers mistreat them. They have some say in their lives. I do not see how this can be defended. Even if you take away they blatantly awful things forced upon these people (requiring them to dance and wear revealing clothing for the pleasure of their masters -- yes this is a form of rape -- and expecting them to commit suicide because their master dies) the fact that they have no free will is despicable. So they live in relative comfort, this doesn't make up for the fact they have no choices in their lives. Would anyone here honestly give up their free will and ability to live their life as they choose? Then why argue that it is OK to force others to give up theirs?

 

 

As long as their masters "allows" them to keep property;)

[Sharaman]

Ok

Here's a checklist

Almost every nation we've seen is a monarchy.

Every monarch has over-reaching powers

No difference between Westlands-Seanchan

 

Every nation has nobles who provide advice/ arms/ occasionally rebel against the crown

In Westland, laws didn't apply to those nobles until Rand got going.

In Seanchan, laws apply to everyone

 

Every nation has commoners

In much of Westland, the nobles can arbitrarily do what they want to commoners

In Seanchan, the same laws apply to commoners as to nobles.

 

Criminals are treated equally badly by all nations

In Westland they are imprisoned/ put to death

In Seanchan, they are made da'covale / put to death

 

Seanchan also has "blameless" da'covale (meaning non-criminals)

Those blameless da'covale have serious prospects of power and upward mobility

No commoner in Westland has either prospects of power nor upward mobility

 

Every nation in the Westlands has had rebellion/ civil war

Seanchan has rebellion / civil war

 

They're all very flawed societies.

Assuming we ignore channeling, who comes out better?

 

The only major exceptions seem to be the Athan Miere and the Aiel, who have much more egalitarian societies - anyone can rise and fall among the sea-folk, and Aiel chiefs are primus inter pares.

[a5m]

Seanchan also has "blameless" da'covale (meaning non-criminals)

Those blameless da'covale have serious prospects of power and upward mobility

No commoner in Westland has either prospects of power nor upward mobility

 

I don't agree with the westland part of this one. It seems to me most of the military have people that have moved up from simply being a commoner. Examples are a simple as Rand, Matt and Perin. There a lots of other examples too apart from our three heros.

[capuga]

Ok

Here's a checklist

Almost every nation we've seen is a monarchy.

Every monarch has over-reaching powers

No difference between Westlands-Seanchan

 

Every nation has nobles who provide advice/ arms/ occasionally rebel against the crown

In Westland, laws didn't apply to those nobles until Rand got going.

In Seanchan, laws apply to everyone

 

Every nation has commoners

In much of Westland, the nobles can arbitrarily do what they want to commoners

In Seanchan, the same laws apply to commoners as to nobles.

 

Criminals are treated equally badly by all nations

In Westland they are imprisoned/ put to death

In Seanchan, they are made da'covale / put to death

 

Seanchan also has "blameless" da'covale (meaning non-criminals)

Those blameless da'covale have serious prospects of power and upward mobility

No commoner in Westland has either prospects of power nor upward mobility

 

Every nation in the Westlands has had rebellion/ civil war

Seanchan has rebellion / civil war

 

They're all very flawed societies.

Assuming we ignore channeling, who comes out better?

 

The only major exceptions seem to be the Athan Miere and the Aiel, who have much more egalitarian societies - anyone can rise and fall among the sea-folk, and Aiel chiefs are primus inter pares.

 

Being better than the Westlands overall (which can be debated) does not make many of their practices OK. I live in the US and I personally feel that I live in the best, most fair country in the world (and possibly in history). But that doesn't mean that there are not plenty of things this country and government couldn't improve upon. The Seanchan could certainly stand some improvement in many areas.

[WhiskyJack]

Bahere told Perrin that once all nobles were commoners. That would make sense, won't it. Besides we have YET to see a slave winning his/her freedom. So whatever position slave occupies, they be still a slave and there will always be those who can wipe that life in seconds by one command.

[yoniy0]

C'mon, I shouldn't have to point out the following:

 

Almost every nation we've seen is a monarchy.

Every monarch has over-reaching powers

No difference between Westlands-Seanchan

Untrue. Elayne rules under the Law. Fortuona is Law incarnate. You could tell Elayne that she's a disgrace to her face, and walk your separate way. Try doing the same with Fortuona, I wonder how far you'll get.

 

Every nation has nobles who provide advice/ arms/ occasionally rebel against the crown

In Westland, laws didn't apply to those nobles until Rand got going.

In Seanchan, laws apply to everyone

Untrue. Tear had laws like that. None of the other nations did.

 

Every nation has commoners

In much of Westland, the nobles can arbitrarily do what they want to commoners

In Seanchan, the same laws apply to commoners as to nobles.

Again, that WAS the situation in Tear, but not so in other places. And, in Seanchan, a person of the Blood can look anywhere he/she bloody well chooses to. A commoner cannot. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg, we just don't know.

 

Criminals are treated equally badly by all nations

In Westland they are imprisoned/ put to death

In Seanchan, they are made da'covale / put to death

In Andor, for example, a criminal is entitled to a trial. The same in the Two Rivers, and I assume elsewhere (even Geofram expected villagers to have those rights). In Seanchan, the will of the Blood is law, and if the High Lady wishes you be made da'coval, that's that.

 

Seanchan also has "blameless" da'covale (meaning non-criminals)

Those blameless da'covale have serious prospects of power and upward mobility

No commoner in Westland has either prospects of power nor upward mobility

Unture. How many so'jin are there? How many Hands to the Empress? And how many cup bearers? Serious prospects? I just don't see it.

And, Tam is a commoner. He reached high status. It is possible in Randland. Bashere tells Perrin the same thing.

 

Every nation in the Westlands has had rebellion/ civil war

Seanchan has rebellion / civil war

That, at least, is true enough.

 

They're all very flawed societies.

Assuming we ignore channeling, who comes out better?

I don't believe that I'll be doing anything of the sort. The measure of a society is how far one can fall, through no fault of his own, not how those other citizens live their lives. Or else the Third Reich was a benevolent government.

 

The only major exceptions seem to be the Athan Miere and the Aiel, who have much more egalitarian societies - anyone can rise and fall among the sea-folk, and Aiel chiefs are primus inter pares.

I agree with you there, though.

[didymos]

Those blameless da'covale have serious prospects of power and upward mobility

 

Egregious overestimate. So'jhin are few. Officers in the DWG are few. The DWG guard itself is few compared to the population of da'covale as a whole (just do a count of how many white-garbed folk line the walls of various Seanchan Blood's quarters and then multiply that by the total population of the Blood. Deduct a few, of course, for lower Blood. Now add in all the "rebels" and suchlike condemned to stuff like cleaning the canals in Ebou Dar, and think how often that sort of thing must have happened during the centuries of Consolidation, and how many descendants those folk had). Seekers too are few, and what's more, not all of them are property (and as mentioned, can be executed for not "seeking" fast enough to please. I.e. on a whim).

 

No commoner in Westland has either prospects of power nor upward mobility

 

Nonsense. Titles, yes, are hard to come by. They are not the same thing as power or upward mobility. There are a lot of wealthy, influential commoners in the Westlands. There are also a sizable number of dirt-poor and essentially powerless nobles. And, in a number of nations, the military will promote commoners to positions of great authority and prestige (cf. Tam Al'Thor). In Andor, marriages to commoners, even by the Queen, are hardly unheard of. Then you have the "big shot" servants, commoners all, who basically control the palaces and fortresses, etc. Don't forget all those governmental clerks, either. Insert bunch of other stuff you're conveniently ignoring to make a huge overgeneralisation here.

[Sharaman]

C'mon, I shouldn't have to point out the following:

 

Almost every nation we've seen is a monarchy.

Every monarch has over-reaching powers

No difference between Westlands-Seanchan

Untrue. Elayne rules under the Law. Fortuona is Law incarnate. You could tell Elayne that she's a disgrace to her face, and walk your separate way. Try doing the same with Fortuona, I wonder how far you'll get.

 

Every nation has nobles who provide advice/ arms/ occasionally rebel against the crown

In Westland, laws didn't apply to those nobles until Rand got going.

In Seanchan, laws apply to everyone

Untrue. Tear had laws like that. None of the other nations did.

 

Every nation has commoners

In much of Westland, the nobles can arbitrarily do what they want to commoners

In Seanchan, the same laws apply to commoners as to nobles.

Again, that WAS the situation in Tear, but not so in other places. And, in Seanchan, a person of the Blood can look anywhere he/she bloody well chooses to. A commoner cannot. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg, we just don't know.

 

Criminals are treated equally badly by all nations

In Westland they are imprisoned/ put to death

In Seanchan, they are made da'covale / put to death

In Andor, for example, a criminal is entitled to a trial. The same in the Two Rivers, and I assume elsewhere (even Geofram expected villagers to have those rights). In Seanchan, the will of the Blood is law, and if the High Lady wishes you be made da'coval, that's that.

 

Seanchan also has "blameless" da'covale (meaning non-criminals)

Those blameless da'covale have serious prospects of power and upward mobility

No commoner in Westland has either prospects of power nor upward mobility

Unture. How many so'jin are there? How many Hands to the Empress? And how many cup bearers? Serious prospects? I just don't see it.

And, Tam is a commoner. He reached high status. It is possible in Randland. Bashere tells Perrin the same thing.

 

Every nation in the Westlands has had rebellion/ civil war

Seanchan has rebellion / civil war

That, at least, is true enough.

 

They're all very flawed societies.

Assuming we ignore channeling, who comes out better?

I don't believe that I'll be doing anything of the sort. The measure of a society is how far one can fall, through no fault of his own, not how those other citizens live their lives. Or else the Third Reich was a benevolent government.

 

The only major exceptions seem to be the Athan Miere and the Aiel, who have much more egalitarian societies - anyone can rise and fall among the sea-folk, and Aiel chiefs are primus inter pares.

I agree with you there, though.

 

I pointed out earlier that Andor is an exception.

It's not only Tear - in Arad Doman, the King's messenger is imprisoned on a whim.

In Amadicia, the Whitecloaks try anybody they please, on mere accusation of being a DF.

Seanchan laws may be strange but they're consistent.

As to upwards mobility - very few actually make it to the top of the heap even in the most egalitarian of modern societies. Look at Gini even now. In historical periods, the top 5% in most, if not all, nations controlled over 90% of resources.

Bashere was referring to periods of turmoil when commoners did rise to the top - it doesn't happen in stable times in Westland.

Tam was the equivalent of a Furyk Karede - a good fighting man from a commoner/ da'covale background who made it to the top.

[yoniy0]

Let's leave it at that. I don't agree with what you said there, but obviously I won't bring you over to my way of thinking. I accept that virtually no people in Randland is self-governed. On the other hand, I'm not so sure anymore that that's even what we should aim for. Next time they hold an election here, I'm in serious trouble for want of a serious candidate.

[Sharaman]

Let's leave it at that. I don't agree with what you said there, but obviously I won't bring you over to my way of thinking. I accept that virtually no people in Randland is self-governed. On the other hand, I'm not so sure anymore that that's even what we should aim for. Next time they hold an election here, I'm in serious trouble for want of a serious candidate.

I'm not saying that either slavery or Seanchan civilisation is "good", just that in the context of WoTland, it's not particularly bad.

[Magnetic Zero]

I give you major props for having the cojones to come onto the board in an attempt to discuss a position that most people are likely to have a violent, emotional reaction against. Needless to say, I'm not going to bother arguing the point because I don't are that much. I merely wanted to clarify one thing:

 

Do channelers deserve to be treated as pets? No, but they can't also be allowed to just rule. That happened in the Age of Legends, and the channelers' desire for a new power source resulted in the Dark One being freed.

 

There is one problem with that sentiment. You are conflating all definitions of the word "power" and all uses of power as equally bad. You seem to be basing this idea on the results of the "power grab" (which has negative implications that cause me to hesitate to even use in this discussion for reasons I hope will become clear) which were entirely inadvertent.

 

Aes Sedai in the Age of Legends were not rulers. They existed solely to better the lives of everyone. Beidomon and Mierin Eronaile thought the Sharom was a new source of the One Power -- one which both men and women could use. As it's often been recited, the best works of the Age of Legends, the best works that could possibly be done with the One Power, were done through cooperation between men and women. Beidomon and Mierin believed that this new power would allow even greater cooperation as the differences between men and women would become moot. It was entirely accidental that what they were drilling into was the Dark One's prison.

 

Their attempt to acquire more power was not to rule more effectively or for the love of power; it was to be able to do even greater things for the benefit of humanity. Aes Sedai means Servants of All in the Old Tongue.

 

So your explanation for why the Aes Sedai cannot be allowed to simply rule is based on a faulty assumption. But the reasoning is more or less similar to the reasoning the Seanchan use for leashing the marath'damane. Except they don't know about the history of the Dark One's release, so they don't use that as an example. Rather, they have their own sordid history with Aes Sedai which is also based on ridiculous assumptions.

 

The history which led to the Aes Sedai's leashing in Seanchan is not a simple thing.

 

The Seanchan of ol' believed the Aes Sedai a threat because they believed them to be Darkfriends (a declaration Luthair Paendrag's army made seeing them fighting). But it was an Aes Sedai who made the original a'dam, and for the same reason the Aes Sedai on this side of the ocean created the Three Oaths, to give the people a reason to trust Aes Sedai.

 

Just because the Seanchan's actions and culture is understandable, though, doesn't mean it's not entirely detestable by us.

[nophone]

the seanchan are lamesauce

[waffle]

Randland governments being awful and corrupt doesn´t make the seanchan system ok. I hate them too.

 

the seanchan are lamesauce

 

/thread(?)

[yoniy0]

Beidomon and Mierin Eronaile thought the Sharom was a new source of the One Power

Actually, the Sharom was simply akin to a lab, floating above the foremost research facility in the AoL, the Collam Daan of V'saine. It was the place in which the experiment that led to the Drilling of the Bore was conducted, and was therefore destroyed as a result of said experiment. The place the Bore was actually Drilled at was in fact a tropical island, if memory serves.

 

 

The Seanchan of ol' believed the Aes Sedai a threat because they believed them to be Darkfriends (a declaration Luthair Paendrag's army made seeing them fighting). But it was an Aes Sedai who made the original a'dam, and for the same reason the Aes Sedai on this side of the ocean created the Three Oaths, to give the people a reason to trust Aes Sedai.

I doubt Luthair and his people thought the AS Darkfriends. They were just competing for power and scheming in a way that made the land unstable. And it was for that reason that Deain Sedai created the a'dam - to gain power over her fellow AS.

[Magnetic Zero]

Actually, the Sharom was simply akin to a lab, floating above the foremost research facility in the AoL, the Collam Daan of V'saine. It was the place in which the experiment that led to the Drilling of the Bore was conducted, and was therefore destroyed as a result of said experiment. The place the Bore was actually Drilled at was in fact a tropical island, if memory serves.

 

Nope. The Sharom exploded in black fire upon the drilling of the Bore high above Collam Daan, not through some experiment which later led to the drilling of the Bore. The drilling of the Bore itself was an experiment.

 

 

I doubt Luthair and his people thought the AS Darkfriends. They were just competing for power and scheming in a way that made the land unstable. And it was for that reason that Deain Sedai created the a'dam - to gain power over her fellow AS.

 

The Guide says that Luthair Paendrag's army quite naturally thought the fighting Aes Sedai and exotic creatures they found were Darkfriends and named them thusly. No doubt the Aes Sedai simply were competing for power and scheming which made the land unstable. But that's not the justification Paendrag and his army used for the mass leashing of every Aes Sedai.

 

Also, your explanation for why Deain created the a'dam makes it seem as if it was happenstance that led to Luthair Paendrag receiving it. Deain created it as a gift to Paendrag to get him and his people to trust the Aes Sedai.

[yoniy0]

Nope. The Sharom exploded in black fire upon the drilling of the Bore high above Collam Daan, not through some experiment which later led to the drilling of the Bore. The drilling of the Bore itself was an experiment.

Which is what I meant. I didn't mean to imply a delay in time between said experiment and the Drilling of the Bore. It's just that the only physical location we can associate to the Bore is Shayol Ghul (though, like the Prison itself, the Bore probably exists everywhere, which is why they were able to Drill it all the way from the Sharom).

 

The Guide says that Luthair Paendrag's army quite naturally thought the fighting Aes Sedai and exotic creatures they found were Darkfriends and named them thusly. No doubt the Aes Sedai simply were competing for power and scheming which made the land unstable. But that's not the justification Paendrag and his army used for the mass leashing of every Aes Sedai.

 

Also, your explanation for why Deain created the a'dam makes it seem as if it was happenstance that led to Luthair Paendrag receiving it. Deain created it as a gift to Paendrag to get him and his people to trust the Aes Sedai.

I stand corrected about the DF thing, though I guess it's a matter of interpretation. If Luthair pulled a WC to justify his conquest, well that's that.

However, I didn't say it was a coincidence that Luthair gained use of the a'dam. Deain Sedai brought him the first captured AS (performing the service of a sul'dam herself) as a gift, yes, but it was clearly done in the hope of allying with him and gaining a high position in his court. She didn't mail him the a'dam, and it wasn't meant to make them trust AS. It was meant to help them control rogue AS, in the hope that faithful ones will gain a place of power in his new Empire.

That's how I read it, at least. I might be wrong, but I find it difficult to reconcile your explanation with what she did.

[Magnetic Zero]

Which is what I meant. I didn't mean to imply a delay in time between said experiment and the Drilling of the Bore. It's just that the only physical location we can associate to the Bore is Shayol Ghul (though, like the Prison itself, the Bore probably exists everywhere, which is why they were able to Drill it all the way from the Sharom).

 

And I'm saying the Sharom was physically located where Shayol Ghul is now. You are right that the Bore is located everywhere, but Shayol Ghul is merely a thin part in the Pattern where you can feel it.

 

I stand corrected about the DF thing, though I guess it's a matter of interpretation. If Luthair pulled a WC to justify his conquest, well that's that.

However, I didn't say it was a coincidence that Luthair gained use of the a'dam. Deain Sedai brought him the first captured AS (performing the service of a sul'dam herself) as a gift, yes, but it was clearly done in the hope of allying with him and gaining a high position in his court. She didn't mail him the a'dam, and it wasn't meant to make them trust AS. It was meant to help them control rogue AS, in the hope that faithful ones will gain a place of power in his new Empire.

That's how I read it, at least. I might be wrong, but I find it difficult to reconcile your explanation with what she did.

 

I don't see why Deain's action cannot be both an effort to get Paendrag to trust the Aes Sedai and an effort to gain a position in Paendrag's court.

[yoniy0]

And I'm saying the Sharom was physically located where Shayol Ghul is now. You are right that the Bore is located everywhere, but Shayol Ghul is merely a thin part in the Pattern where you can feel it.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong:

In what was now called the Age of Legends, this had been an idyllic island in a cool sea, a favorite of those who enjoyed the rustic.

The city of V'saine (a major city in the AoL) hardly fits that description.

 

I don't see why Deain's action cannot be both an effort to get Paendrag to trust the Aes Sedai and an effort to gain a position in Paendrag's court.

Because she leashed one of her sisters and brought her to Luthair, to live her life as a damane, with every intention to make additional a'dam, thus enabling him to leash more and more AS, until he was able to leash her as well.