You know that thing about judging someone not by the color of their skin? It goes both ways (all ways). Why would someone be inappropriate to discuss slavery just because of being white? Does skin color determine cognitive capabilities required to understand slavery? Start down that road, and it’s a slippery slope, for who knows what else skin color determines. Herman stated in her previous piece how relevant GoT is, so I presume that means she considers Benioff and Weiss capable storytellers.
Also, the fact that something was heavily criticized does not mean that such criticism was valid and justified. You can criticize anything. Having proper arguments for it is a different matter altogether.
Also, ‘humanizing’ slave owners is not something that should be an artistic taboo. Slave owners were, in fact human. Were they good humans? Probably not. But what about the likes of Thomas Jefferson? Don’t we have something positive to say about him? Wasn’t he a complex human being?
Or, return to Ancient Greek times. Aristotle wrote about slaves as ‘speaking tools’. But he also wrote a profound work of ethics that is relevant to this day (and in some ways more advanced and subtle than other ethical systems).
So no, it shouldn’t be a problem that in 2017 two capable showrunners tackle parallel world in which slavery still exists. What they do with it is a different matter altogether. But please don’t cite their skin color as an argument for why this is a bad idea, and please don’t cite unjustified criticism of their previous work as a reason for why this might not be good. After all, having a milquetoast and frustrated high-school teacher who manufactures and sells drugs seemed like a very bad idea for the show. Look how that turned out in the end.
