BLUE SUN ROOM

Is it wrong to be Pro- Alliance ?

POSTED BY: BOOKSWORD
UPDATED: Saturday, March 27, 2010 15:34
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16725
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, July 11, 2008 3:33 AM

SPACEANJL


No, it wasn't a quote. What I meant to say was - I don't think discrepancies between planets will be addressed. I think planets that have something to offer in the way of natural resources (say, maybe oil) will get help and funds for rebuilding from the Central Planets. Poor planets will get left to fall to pieces or starve.

I have a very low opinion of humanity, and I don't think five hundred years will change Man's basic unpleasantness. Sorry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 12, 2008 1:03 PM

RALLEM


You won't get an argument from me and I think mankind will only change when it is profitable to do so.



http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:54 AM

MOONDOG


I'm going to toss out a pertenant quote here from H. Beam Piper (anyone remember him?) from his book Space Viking: "It may be...that there is something fundamentally unworkable about government itself. As long as Homo Sapians Terra is a wild animal, which he has been and always will be until he evolves into something different in a million or so years, maybe a workable system of government is a political-sciense impossability...Then we'll have to make it work the best way we can and when it breaks down, hope vthe next try will work a little bit better for a little bit longer."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 20, 2008 2:53 PM

AG05


The point I am about to try to make compares the
Browncoats of the Unification War to the Confederates of the Civil War. I want to make it plain that I condemn the massive racial injustice that existed in the South at that time, and I am not trying to romaticize a terrible, racist system:


Now Then:

I don't think the Independents were fighting to destroy destroy the Alliance any more that the Confederates were trying to destory the US in the Civil War. They were merely fighting to be separate from it. The Browncoats decided that the benefits of Alliance control was not worth the lost freedoms of imposed enlightenment. They were fighting, I think, for the right to simply say "no thanks" to Government control.


I'll finish this post later, I have to work now.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:16 PM

MOONDOG


I really don't like to step on the romantisism involved in the modern view of the "old south" but it was a highly stratified society that was an attempt to recreate the culture of the renaissance. That's why it has been refered to as "A rich man's war and a poor man's battle." As to how the Independants would have kept together had they won, you have only to look to West Verginia, which secceeded from the confederacy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:25 PM

MOONDOG


Wonderful--I've read that poem several times (White man's burden if I remember correctly) And you kept bang on to the thrust of the origional--I take my hat off to you. There was one line in the origonal poem, though, that hits right on a serious problem with colonialism--"Send forth the best ye can." The drain on the dymanic portion of the population led to weak government at home--Hmmmm...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:19 PM

CHRISISALL


The Alliance won & tried to tell everyone how to live, if the Independents had won, I suspect individual rights would have been respected a bit more, but then they would have tried tellin' folks how to live after a while as well. Governments are like tires; you only get so many miles off 'em before they go bad & ya need to change 'em.

So the answer to the original question....no.


The moderate Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:40 PM

AG05


Quote:

Originally posted by AG05:
The point I am about to try to make compares the
Browncoats of the Unification War to the Confederates of the Civil War. I want to make it plain that I condemn the massive racial injustice that existed in the South at that time, and I am not trying to romaticize a terrible, racist system:


Now Then:

I don't think the Independents were fighting to destroy destroy the Alliance any more that the Confederates were trying to destory the US in the Civil War. They were merely fighting to be separate from it. The Browncoats decided that the benefits of Alliance control was not worth the lost freedoms of imposed enlightenment. They were fighting, I think, for the right to simply say "no thanks" to Government control.


I'll finish this post later, I have to work now.



Done with work, so onward:


The first settlers of the outer rim planets settled out there beyond Alliance control (assuming the Alliance even existed at the time), and some planets went at least 1 generation without Alliance "assistance". It seems reasonable, then, that a group of colonies, geographically and politically isolated from the main population, who have survived by their own hard work and grit, would resent and resist a move to force "civilization" upon them. And let us not forget, the Alliance started the war (according to Jayne, at least).


I'm also not too sure about the Alliance's goodwill and desire to spread enlightenment throughout the system. The series mentions several times that, in the process of terraforming and settling the outer planets, the Alliance appears to care very little for the safety of well being of the pioneers. They use slave labor for terraforming projects, send settlers out with little more than a few supplies and a herd, and while they may send medicine to a economically productive mining town, they don't seem to care much when it gets stolen. So I really don't see them spreading the light of civilization quite as much as some folks might think.


Personally, I'm anti-Alliance, simply because I think that imposing your ideals upon others is the height of arrogance, and doing so at gunpoint the worst abuse of power. I don't give a rat damn how benign your intentions are, or how beautiful of peaceful or rich your society is, you don't have the right to force me to join it, and sure as hell don't have the right to kill me if I'm not a part of it.

I respect the right of your society and it's people to exist, even though I don't want to be part of it. And I respect the right of people to choose that wa of life over mine. All I ask is that same respect and that same choice. The Alliance doesn't offer that choice. The Independents do.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:44 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AG05:
All I ask is that same respect and that same choice. The Alliance doesn't offer that choice. The Independents do.


Which is why I would've gone Independent...deeper treads.


The tire-analogy-continuin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:45 PM

MOONDOG


"What price freedom?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:59 PM

AG05


Quote:

Originally posted by moondog:
"What price freedom?"



Any.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 22, 2008 6:39 AM

LEEDAVIDT


well, being a trekky in my alter-ego i can understand the desire to be a part of the "federation"...however the browncoat in me tells me the gorram alliance isn't the answer...if i've ever learned one thing..browncoats stick together like brothers...wouldn't want the verse to be any other way...thanx for the question

http://www.myspace.com/leedavidt

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Having a government and orderliness is shiny and all, but why the need for an Empire?
You would rather disolve the United States, and Britain, Canada, or wherever you are, and instead be under the thumb of the United Nations run by Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Somalia, Egypt, Sudan, Hezbollah? (many of them headed one of the important UN councils recently, in their rotation, overruling the above listed nations of representative Democracy)?

The Rim Worlds each had a government. They seemed to be satisfied. They also resisted becoming enslaved under Alliance Domination. If you give us your address, we could have your friendly neighborhood whiteslaver come by and package you off to your desired enslavement. If you have daughters, we'd make a bunch of money on the deal, too (you get nothing, of course, being a slave).
I suppose you also revere the tidy doings of Alliance-endorsed Niska ruling Ezra?

Most of the World would disagree with you. They did not salivate at the prospect of enslavement and extermination under the Worldwide reign of the Third Reich, nor the Empire of Japan, nor Napoleon, nor Rome, nor Kaiser Wilhelm, nor King George (British Empire), nor Gengis Khan. Just because their minions won some battles and they reigned for a period of time, why should they be annointed all-time ruler? Why not select a governemtn more responsive to the governed? These are the modern day comparisons of your hallowed Liberty-squashing Alliance.

Yes, it is wrong to be pro-Alliance.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 2, 2009 7:47 AM

CAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by moondog:
Wonderful--I've read that poem several times (White man's burden if I remember correctly)



Always nice to have a satisfied customer…

Returning to the point of this thread, I do not see how we can claim to have enough information about the war to have an informed opinion of either side. All we really know is what the sides were called, that the Independents were conquered, and that both sides considered themselves to be in the right. It is as if all you knew about WWII was that Germany was conquered at the end. If that is all you know, you have little basis to make claims about who was in the right.

As for the larger question: it seems to me that the important point about a Government is legitimacy: who has the right to order you to do what? The fun comes when people disagree about who the rightful ruler is, or agree that it should be decided by rules that are, in practice, unworkable. You cannot, for example, have a democratic government of any size without a mass media. No one would have any idea about who or what they were voting for…

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:52 AM

BOOKSWORD


You know I have enjoyed the intelligent conversations this thread has bought up however I belive I have the final answer as to why to go Pro Alliance.

Purple..is slimming.

I said it, Purple is stylish and every so pretty.

Sleek is good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:29 PM

GOODWOLF


Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
I would like to state my opinion that I think the alliance was right in forcing the border worlds into submission because it was the Alliance who terra-formed those moons and planets into Earth like bodies for their own people to settle. They did not go through all of the trouble and expense for people to move there and start their own governments.



I would like to state my opinion that I think the British Empire was right in forcing the American Colonies into submission because it was the Empire who funded those colonies in the new world for their own people to settle. They did not go through all of the trouble and expense for people to move there and start their own governments.

See how that works?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:51 PM

GOODWOLF


Quote:

Originally posted by PurpleBelly86:
Hell... if it's wrong to be pro-Alliance in this 'verse, I'm proud to be wrong.

I love Firefly - wouldn't be here otherwise - but to be honest the first thing most libertarians need is a dose of cold water. Much as they may be annoying and bureaucratic and perhaps restrictive, governments do have a purpose and responsibilities to their public, and tough situations (like natural disasters, et cetera) have this bad tendency to get ugly when that purpose isn't fulfilled. Even within the context of the show, much as the Alliance does things that look somewhat shady, I'm not convinced a 'verse without them would look any better.



I seriously don't know where to start on this. Let's start with the natural disasters. I live in FL, hurricane alley, baby. Every storm season I make sure that I have the necessary basic supplies in case we get hit. I have a propane cooker, canned food, pasta and about 30 gallons worth of water storage. Mosquito repellent, toilet paper, hell even got some kool aid, tea and sugar laid up. When/if we get hit, the only thing I need for the government to do is restore basic utilities. Anybody worth their weight in dog poo can do this if they're not too busy watching American Idol. But most will cry and wait for Big Daddy Government to come in, kiss their knees and make it all better. (See New Orleans, Katrina) Worse, they will most likely look at me, with my food and all, and call me stingy if I refuse to share with them. And I'm the bad guy if I point out that lack of preparation on their part does not justify an emergency on my part. If I have the food/resources, of course I'd share. But the cold hard fact is me and mine get first dibs, everybody else gets what I feel like giving them. But for someone to expect me to simply because I have more than they do... no. Freedom assumes that you will take some basic responsibilities on as well.

And if anybody wonders, yeah, I've done this before. I lived in Ocala in '04 when we had three hurricanes all pass by or through within two weeks. My family and I were without power for a week and we made it just fine without any Government assistance other than them getting the basic utilities back up and running.

So to sum up, I'll take a less intrusive, less restrictive government, even if it means losing some "services" simply because I don't need them to supply those services. I can do that on my own.

That's the libertarian way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:53 PM

GOODWOLF


Quote:

Originally posted by Booksword:

Purple..is slimming.



Yeah, but brown hides the dust stains better.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:58 PM

RALLEM


Quote:

Originally posted by Goodwolf:
Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
I would like to state my opinion that I think the alliance was right in forcing the border worlds into submission because it was the Alliance who terra-formed those moons and planets into Earth like bodies for their own people to settle. They did not go through all of the trouble and expense for people to move there and start their own governments.



I would like to state my opinion that I think the British Empire was right in forcing the American Colonies into submission because it was the Empire who funded those colonies in the new world for their own people to settle. They did not go through all of the trouble and expense for people to move there and start their own governments.

See how that works?



You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.



http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 4:03 PM

GOODWOLF


Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.



Then it sounds like you're espousing a "Might makes Right" philosophy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 4:27 PM

RALLEM


Quote:

Originally posted by Goodwolf:
Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.



Then it sounds like you're espousing a "Might makes Right" philosophy.



Both sides could be right in their perspectives, and the winner is the one side with the perseverance to outlast the other. I think if Britain were able to afford sending troops to America during the Revolutionary War, we would all be proud British Citizens right now.



http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 4:47 PM

BYTEMITE


mycroft: There's a king of Londinium, apparently, though I suspect the role is largely ceremonial. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 5:38 PM

GOODWOLF


Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:

Both sides could be right in their perspectives, and the winner is the one side with the perseverance to outlast the other.



May have been on the losin' side, still not convinced it was the wrong one. Sound familiar?

Quote:

I think if Britain were able to afford sending troops to America during the Revolutionary War, we would all be proud British Citizens right now.



Ah, if a frog had wings... and I call BS that both sides can be right in their perspectives. That's like saying that Israel and Palestine can both be right in their perspectives. Or the IRA and Britain. Or the North vs the South in the American Civil War. Or any two mortal foes you want to pick out. When looked on from the outside, one tends to find reason to support one over the other.

Regardless of how far we've come from what the Framers intended, they went to war for what they saw as valid reasons. Namely that we should not be taxed unjustly and without representation. In other words, that we weren't a slave colony whose only existence was to send raw goods and materials to an increasingly unsustainable Empire.

So with some serious attitude and help from France late in the fourth quarter, here we are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 6:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.


I think you're missing the point. The Colonists lost several times between 1604 and 1776. The desire for freedom did not end.
The War For Alliance Domination was from 2506-2511. It's only been 6 years since then. Do you really, really, really think all humans in the verse will surrender their desire for freedom forever, and not revive the fight? Really?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:21 AM

RALLEM


Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.


I think you're missing the point. The Colonists lost several times between 1604 and 1776. The desire for freedom did not end.
The War For Alliance Domination was from 2506-2511. It's only been 6 years since then. Do you really, really, really think all humans in the verse will surrender their desire for freedom forever, and not revive the fight? Really?




I believe that only Joss Whedon can answer this question jewelstaitefan, but I would like to point out that this show was designed more to follow the American Civil War than the Revolutionary War. The Civil War ended quite quickly and most of the Rebel Soldiers which survived decided to get on with their lives as best they could. Some of the majority stayed in the south to live, and some moved west to get away from the Federation of United States. Some of the minority did vow to fight on, but I don't think Joss wanted to broaden his perspective to include those people and wanted to focus solely on the losers who decided to move out of the Government's range.



http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:37 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.


I think you're missing the point. The Colonists lost several times between 1604 and 1776. The desire for freedom did not end.
The War For Alliance Domination was from 2506-2511. It's only been 6 years since then. Do you really, really, really think all humans in the verse will surrender their desire for freedom forever, and not revive the fight? Really?




I believe that only Joss Whedon can answer this question jewelstaitefan, but I would like to point out that this show was designed more to follow the American Civil War than the Revolutionary War. The Civil War ended quite quickly and most of the Rebel Soldiers which survived decided to get on with their lives as best they could. Some of the majority stayed in the south to live, and some moved west to get away from the Federation of United States. Some of the minority did vow to fight on, but I don't think Joss wanted to broaden his perspective to include those people and wanted to focus solely on the losers who decided to move out of the Government's range.



I've always thought the Civil War comparison was not quite accurate. Post war, yes, but the apparent causes of the war, no.

I'm aware that the idea for the War and Mal's character were influenced strongly by stories Joss read about the Civil War and soldiers who suffered from PTSD after it. But some of the metaphors don't add up for the Unification War to have been a perfect reflection of the Civil War (Like Londinium, Parliament, and the King).

In the Civil War, furthermore, I'd make an argument that the North was pretty dependent on the South to supply raw goods for the North's manufacturing powers, and that the North had some very real economic concerns and interests in the South not seceding. But I think the Rim and even Border planets are a lot more like the Revolutionary War example of a mother country and it's colonies when it's colonies start to become self-sufficient and start to demand fair and equal treatment. Only difference is, I think when each new colony established themselves, they were considered sovereign up until the Alliance decided to come in and bring them under the same roof. If the colonies were already Alliance, and decided to secede, why would the Alliance call their cause "Unification?"

BlueSunCompanyMan wrote an interesting blog about this, where he compared also the megacorporation Blue Sun to the East India Company.

So I think that the comparison of the Unification War to the Revolutionary War is more accurate, although I also think there are elements from the Civil War as well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:49 AM

RALLEM


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.


I think you're missing the point. The Colonists lost several times between 1604 and 1776. The desire for freedom did not end.
The War For Alliance Domination was from 2506-2511. It's only been 6 years since then. Do you really, really, really think all humans in the verse will surrender their desire for freedom forever, and not revive the fight? Really?




I believe that only Joss Whedon can answer this question jewelstaitefan, but I would like to point out that this show was designed more to follow the American Civil War than the Revolutionary War. The Civil War ended quite quickly and most of the Rebel Soldiers which survived decided to get on with their lives as best they could. Some of the majority stayed in the south to live, and some moved west to get away from the Federation of United States. Some of the minority did vow to fight on, but I don't think Joss wanted to broaden his perspective to include those people and wanted to focus solely on the losers who decided to move out of the Government's range.



I've always thought the Civil War comparison was not quite accurate. Post war, yes, but the apparent causes of the war, no.

I'm aware that the idea for the War and Mal's character were influenced strongly by stories Joss read about the Civil War and soldiers who suffered from PTSD after it. But some of the metaphors don't add up for the Unification War to have been a perfect reflection of the Civil War (Like Londinium, Parliament, and the King).

In the Civil War, furthermore, I'd make an argument that the North was pretty dependent on the South to supply raw goods for the North's manufacturing powers, and that the North had some very real economic concerns and interests in the South not seceding. But I think the Rim and even Border planets are a lot more like the Revolutionary War example of a mother country and it's colonies when it's colonies start to become self-sufficient and start to demand fair and equal treatment. Only difference is, I think when each new colony established themselves, they were considered sovereign up until the Alliance decided to come in and bring them under the same roof. If the colonies were already Alliance, and decided to seceded, why would the Alliance call their cause "Unification?"

BlueSunCompanyMan wrote an interesting blog about this, where he compared also the megacorporation Blue Sun to the East India Company.

So I think that the comparison of the Unification War to the Revolutionary War is more accurate, although I also think there are elements from the Civil War as well.



But the questions still remain, could the settlers have settled on these Moons & planets if the Alliance hadn't spent its resources to terra form them, and does the Alliance have the right to expect some returns on those investments?



http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 6:08 AM

BYTEMITE


No one has a RIGHT to a return on an investment. An investment is a risk.

Do the colonies owe something to the mother country? Probably. Did the Core Worlds feel that way about the Independents? Oh heck yeah. Were Independents biting the hand that fed them? Sure. Do owners sometimes kick their dogs? Yep. Does the owner deserve to get bitten if they do it too often? Definitely.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:06 PM

RALLEM


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
No one has a RIGHT to a return on an investment. An investment is a risk.

Do the colonies owe something to the mother country? Probably. Did the Core Worlds feel that way about the Independents? Oh heck yeah. Were Independents biting the hand that fed them? Sure. Do owners sometimes kick their dogs? Yep. Does the owner deserve to get bitten if they do it too often? Definitely.



I think to the Alliance a risk on their investment is if a world's terra forming doesn't take. If the Settlers get frisky they have a military to take care of that. I bet the Settlers had to sign some sort of contract stating their servitude or citizenship.



http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:48 PM

DEATHBYSTUPIDITY


Folk is folk. Remember that line?
People are people, and to illustrate my point, I served in Iraq. I fought for my country. I love my country to the very ends of my fiber. Will i die for it? Yes. Will I die for Obama? No. Why? I don't support him. He is a person, a person I don't agree with.

There were plenty of people in the civil war (General Lee for example) who fought against the north simply because his state decided to leave, and he felt he owed more to that state than he did to the country.

And whether you believe it or not, every war may be different... but every war is the same in one way. There are always people who are broken after the war ends, on either side, and those broken people will always try to find their own path afterwards. Mal and Zoe are a good example of 'just trying to get on with our lives.'

I know way too many former servicemen and women who don't know what to do with themselves afterwards. I know a few who even went BACK to the military after like 3 or 4 years... only to realize they didn't even fit in there anymore.

When you experience a situation like that... you are forever changed. You see things in a different way. Politics, money, power... doesn't mean what it did before, and you may not want to ever deal with it again.

*****************

Enough of that.
Now, I'm also into the role-playing aspect of Serenity, and there was one of the creators of the Serenity Role playing book had a very.. very awesome theory.

The question presented to him was "I want a story that would be as earth shattering as the miranda story was, so that my role players will be all 'OMG!'"

His answer was just a simple report, made by an obscure gentleman which suggested that the alliance government was basically.. overdrawn. By a considerable amount. Now although that seems retarded, if you think about it, if the corporations and the like came to realize this.. thousands upon thousands of businesses would go bankrupt. The alliance would collapse in a big heap of smouldering debt.

And if you think, well this is just one guy's story.. think of it this way.

As canon, Joss already has agreed on two other aspects. One, the alliance needed the outer planets to stay with them, because most of the core worlds, are already low on resources. And need the outer planets, to fuel them. Is this wrong? No. But, they are demanding. They don't want to to compromise, or suggest trade routes - they just want those precious resources.

The second bit, is this. In a year or so, a small acting company will be releasing a film, that as far as I know, Joss whedon not only said yes to, but.. is also considering canon. It's about after the miranda report was released to the verse... and the potential SECOND civil war that happens because of it.

Find the movie, Browncoats: Redemption here - http://browncoatsmovie.com/

So in the end, we can count on a few things.
1) the alliance is hurting for resources.
2) One government trying to govern hundreds of planets with weeks and sometimes months between systems.
3) The tv show, movie, was never about politics. it was about people. People in extraordinary circumstances.

So no. Its not wrong to be a purple belly, as the ideals are good. Ideals can stand for centuries but eventually they get tainted by people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:52 PM

GOODWOLF


Quote:

Originally posted by rallem:



I think to the Alliance a risk on their investment is if a world's terra forming doesn't take. If the Settlers get frisky they have a military to take care of that. I bet the Settlers had to sign some sort of contract stating their servitude or citizenship.



Well... maybe. But it's more speculation than is strictly necessary, although not without historical precedence.

As was pointed out previously, it was called the Unification War, not the Pacification War, which one could expect if the Alliance had been subjigating unruly colonies. I'm not sure how canon it was, but I do seem to remember reading something along the lines that the Central Planets pretty much preemptively sought to bring "peace and enlightenment" to the outer worlds.

Not unlike Imperial Rome. I'm sure that they thought they were doing the right thing, and I say that in all seriousness and without sarcasm. But sometimes it's just best to let folk go their own way and do as they will.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:00 AM

BOOKSWORD


That's the thing isn't it.

The Outer Rim wanted to govern themselves. Why would'nt they want that. However the Alliance wanted to bring one order.

The fact of the matter is I view the Unification war as needed to keep that order. Can you imagine if each and every Colony out there decided to govern themselves.

All those worlds with their own rules and goverment.

Anarky.

As I stated before it would be a matter of time before war, domination. World A with more ships decides that that World B should provide them supplies and crop.

They have the strength so they have the right.

World C can't stand World D and their ways. Just rubs them wrong. They have the means so they should just wipe them out.

If the Browncoats won the war what would they have won.

The right to turn on themselves. We would like to think their better nature would win out but as in Safe and Out of Gas the outer Rim is not filled to the brim with lovable saints and good down to earth people.

The Alliance are facist, the Alliance dominate others. The Alliannce are idiots that decide to use PAX as a weopen to enforce peace.

But are they the lesser of two evils.

I tend to think so.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:01 AM

DEATHBYSTUPIDITY


Sword, you don't KNOW that though. And the way they behaved, without so much as ever co-operating before in their existance, the 'colonies' lasted 5 whole years before they were defeated. Sure it was probably like the confederacy of the American civil war - where a few regiments wouldn't leave their state because they thought they would just keep the union from entering there and that was it.

They lost because they weren't wholey unified.

The alliance didn't use pax as a weapon. They were experimenting. Because a few people with IN the alliance, wanted to make people better.

There were probably people in the independence too who thought the same thing could be done.

There are two ideollogies here, Independence, and Unification. A loose confederacy would not mean A can attack B and so on. Because if A attacked B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and M (J and K were too busy making illegal fight club suggestions at the time) would come over, and kick A's ass.

THAT is the idea behind the UN, NATO, The allies, the Axis, any great 'alliance'.

The Alliance didn't want there to be another superpower. Didn't want to have to compete. Thats what it looked like was going to happen the way the Independent planets were behaving before the war. It looked like, maybe, just maybe, in a few dozen years... they would form an alliance of their own.

And that would not be pleasent for the folk in the Alliance top brass. That would mean, less taxes rolling in. Having to compete for fuel, ship yards, everything else they've been taking advantage of for decades.. ESPECIALLY.. land.

As a whole, the entire core barely makes up a 1/5th of the planets according that recently canon map and information resource released recently.

On a tactical stand point, they fought when they did, because the Alliance needed to stop the 'disease' before it grew out of control, and formed it's own soverign nations.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:36 AM

BOOKSWORD


I get why the Alliance did why they did.

I tend to think its better they did.

I really don't think that the Independents would have formed one central goverment like the Alliance because of who they where.

They tended to want to think for themselves as free thinkers should be able to do.

However all those voices and opinions disagreeing on how things are run.

Makes me think of a small Island with a lot of tribes.

Doesn't end well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 14, 2009 7:52 AM

DEATHBYSTUPIDITY


The United states of America, did not start off as the United States. It started off as a Confederacy. A loosely bound group.

Even now, though there is one big president and stuff like that - there are still state elected governors. And, most states hold in their constitution, the right to succeed from the 'union' at any time or place. For example, Arizona does.

The way things were progressing, is that with a unified enemy, the alliance, it would pave a way from more unified actions. Such as a loose agreement between planets to keep from blowing each other out of space. Probably upheld by a council or some such.

As for the analogy of the many different tribes on an island, hate to break it to you but thats exactly what the alliance did. Only China and America remain. Everyone else just kind of succumbed to them.

Some of the stories from the Serenity RPG include one with the lost arks of cibolla, meaning the spanish government had also released several arks and they were destroyed BY the Alliance.. technically.

Then again, speculation and heresay.

The whole thing is, the independence didn't win. The Alliance did. But now that they goofed and the Miranda incident was exposed a NEW independent movement would be bound to spring up (some speculate Whitefall as the beginning) and this time, even more unified. And after it's incredible losses and probably loss of major support thanks to the Miranda files, yeah. The Alliance would probably give way to some other sort of group.

Because, really, thats human nature. Survival. And surviving usually means pooling resources. Thats how the states got founded in the first place. It was nothing but a rabble assortment of colonies, then unified... they ended up getting their independence, together.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:41 AM

BOOKSWORD


I really don't see Miranda inspiring a new Independent movement.

The war was lost, the fire has gone. Things have settled down in the Verse.

Can't see anyone looking to start a ruckus. People gotten comfortable with the way things are. Mal seems to have settled with that and I suspect the rest of the verse has as well.

Still, now the Alliance will be affected. Too long those in the Core worlds have been a little too arrogant a little too pridefull.

Now they are going to have to open their eyes up and learn that they are not better or perfect. That the outerworlds are not the only flawed and savage beings out there.

I get your aguements but tend to disagree with them.

Doesn't make em wrong.

Or right.

Which is the fun part of discussions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:12 PM

GOODWOLF


Quote:

Originally posted by Booksword:
I really don't see Miranda inspiring a new Independent movement.

The war was lost, the fire has gone. Things have settled down in the Verse.

Can't see anyone looking to start a ruckus. People gotten comfortable with the way things are. Mal seems to have settled with that and I suspect the rest of the verse has as well.



I think it might, heavy on the might. Remember, th war has only been over around 6 or so years. Lots of bad blood still about I'd imagine. Would be pretty easy to kick up a fuss.

And given that the Alliance were arrogant, they might not have been all that quick to improve the outer worlds, so people might not have seen enough of a change to quietly accept the yoke of the very same people who created their worst nightmares.

But it's all speculative at this point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:36 AM

MIKEWILLIAMSON


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Joss Wheden is pro-Alliance, I suspect; don’t know why you shouldn’t be, if you want. In interviews he has described the Alliance as “progressive.” A term that, coming form a diehard social and political Liberal like Joss, generally doesn’t mean “bad.”



Whereas for me, "progressive" is not only dishonest but justification for a revolution.

It takes all types.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:09 AM

DEATHBYSTUPIDITY


Ok, for one, there isn't just a bit of 'bad blood' ok, theres probably alot of it. Hera is miffed. Some of the other canon bits made from the RPG made it sound that Shadow had been utterly destroyed by bombardment, not to mention the planet of Athens, an Alliance friendly world occupied by the Independents, had it's cities bombed to oblivion.

Miranda, wasn't their only mistake. It was just one of their bigger ones.

And the bad blood bit, thats not going to go away after 6 years. Sheez.. my grandparents on my mother's side still go on and on and on about how the confederacy should've won the civil war.. that was over 150 years ago! And there are sooooo many people who would foolishly go up in arms for something like that. No it will never happen, because the Union's most attrocious war crimes, aren't really all that well known.

You can plug your ears and yell out "la-la-la-la not listening" all you want, but.. it's very possible that within the next couple of years in the serenity verse, if there hasen't already been.. a new rebellion would start up.

Not saying they were wrong. Trying to better a populace is something mankind loves to try... but jeez they could've at least had fliers and a sign up sheet.. perhaps a "if you let us test on you, you get free land" sorta thing...

------
But I digress. My point is.. people hold grudges for a very long time, and I'm not sure what firefly you've been watching but I can tell that Mal hates the alliance (I think that bit about shadow being bombed to hell just never came to light. He only once talked about where he was from to Saffron, and so therefore it's quite possible Joss had it set up from the beginning.) in the script that didn't have an episode made out of it.. (it was scripted, just never filmed) He show's his normal sarcastic and not caring bits towards the alliance.. but when it comes down to it.. He passively aggressively hates the alliance (showing up on U-day at an alliance friendly bar... every U-day for the past 6 years... thats a bit passive aggressive.)

So anyway, in conclusion.
People can hold grudges for centuries. (look at how the french hated the british, and vice versa, if you need another example)
And Mal is a bitter malcontent.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:27 AM

CHRISISALL


It's human nature to want to control stuff. The Alliance sounds like it started out just fine, but later needed to control unruly moons for it's very survival. Laws & regulations probably got revisited in order to legally gain that control. Then the guns came out.
I think the Alliance just needs a major house cleaning... peeps who were for using Operatives & chemicals to weed out aggression (read: dissent) need to go, then it could get to work mending fences, IMO.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:16 AM

QUANDOM


I beleive Wheedon accurately protrays the chaos attendent upon a victory for Unity in the 'Verse.
Consider -

The American Civil War saved the Union.
Even many ex-Confederates, notably E. Porter Alexander, stated subsequent to the conflict that it was fottunate the South did not acheive its political goals.
But, consider all the evils that followed:

Total bankruptcy of one third the nation.

Moral corrrosion at all levels of governemnt, cumlminating in Grant's notoriously corrupt presidency.

Emigation of the losers to the West, injecting lawlessness and disorder on a wide scale.

Rise of large national business enterprises who frequently bought legislators.

Nascent labor Unions crushed by Federal troops, combined and the use of Chinese contract indentured labor as strikebreakers.

It took decades to recover from the side-effects of the War to Save the Union.

Still, I suggest that the country and the world is better off, on the margin, that we have a United States of America. We need to remember what it costs.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:11 AM

KRELLEK


I kinda find that hard to believe, like in the way the lawman in Serenity(episode 1)spoke to Simon about River as if she was a piece of property(the scene where he holds decidedly ill River as a human shield)or something like that, he seemed to be completely either unaware of what they did to River, or did not care, and only wanted the bounty.

and maybe there have been people in the alliance at the start or before the war that honestly wanted to help the rim worlds get better(continue the terraformation under safer work conditions), but more greedy, selfish elitist seems to have taken over

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:11 AM

KRELLEK


I kinda find that hard to believe, like in the way the lawman in Serenity(episode 1)spoke to Simon about River as if she was a piece of property(the scene where he holds decidedly ill River as a human shield)or something like that, he seemed to be completely either unaware of what they did to River, or did not care, and only wanted the bounty.

and maybe there have been people in the alliance at the start or before the war that honestly wanted to help the rim worlds get better(continue the terraformation under safer work conditions), but more greedy, selfish elitist seems to have taken over

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:41 AM

KRELLEK


Quote:

Originally posted by mycroftxxx:
Personally, I think we'll never know the 'true' nature of the alliance because of the show's cancellation. In the words of Wash "there are so many twists and turns and cul-de-sacs it's crazy!" Before picking "sides" as seems to be what's going on here, I think a better history of how the alliance got to where it is today is needed. Afterall, the original settlers of the new 'verse came from two very different social-political systems, the 'West' and 'China/Asia' and as everyone knows the belief systems between these two human cultures have some serious differences. So, given this starting point, just how did they arrive at a government called the Alliance? We have only a few sketchy details. It has a parliament which infers some attempt at a semi-democratic approach to resolving differences. We've got some proof that there is an enforcement of laws and rules that apply to their military as much as they do on their citizens. Afterall, in the two direct encounters with Alliance cruisers they were treated with proper military decorum versus their reception from Niska and gang? We know ther is an the existence of a judiciary but not the nature of that branch of government. For all we know, there is a "president for life" or some such at the top of the government even though it didn't get mentioned in the short lifespan of the show.

Next, to judge the entire alliance as 'evil' for what happened on Miranda and to River leads down a slippery slope to condemming an entire culture based on the actions of maybe a few rogue individuals who have abused their status within the government (I'm thinking of the operative's line about "just as this facility doesn't exist, neither do I"). The "key members of parlament" also doesn't necessarily mean "all members of parliament", just those bent on doing some aweful things. For all we know they have been rooted out already and the operative was just sent to clean things up (a theme repeated in several other movies).

So, this long-winded response is not really to say that one side or the other is right or wrong, just that when you are dealing with literally billions of people that started from a very different set of cultures, things are bound to be very grey not so black and white as we like it.

One last thing... although I am squarely on the side of our BDH, they _do_ get away with criminal acts that if they occurred in even the least civilized part of our world it would lead to some form of governmental retribution (you just don't go round killing people no matter how justified it seems at the time unless you are in a sanctioned war).

Still, let's not forget this is a TV show / movie and if everyone played by our 'civilized' rules it would be very boring viewing.

I like the 'verse just the way it is. As far as which side I'm on? Definitely BDH just cause they have all the fun!

--

Given a choice between the earth-that-is and the 'verse-that-will-be I'll take the latter.

宁静



I have slightly hard time believing that, lets say navy ship of any nation of earth would turn down to help some shipwrecked people(like they did in safe until some mysterious ident-card, makes the officers make teacup eyes, and suddenly demand all kinds of help)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:11 AM

MYCROFTXXX


Today that very well may be true for most navies of the world but I'd hazard to guess that it is not as universal as may think. Looking back over centuries I doubt an English privateer would assist a Spanish galleon in distress but would, instead, take the opportunity to "relieve" the captain of his command, his crew of their freedom and any booty they could lay their hands on.


--

Given a choice between the earth-that-is and the 'verse-that-will-be I'll take the latter.

宁静

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:34 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by KrelleK:


I have slightly hard time believing that, lets say navy ship of any nation of earth would turn down to help some shipwrecked people(like they did in safe until some mysterious ident-card, makes the officers make teacup eyes, and suddenly demand all kinds of help)


I bet you'll find endless numbers of navy ships that have refused to help a single casualty that looks like he got himself hurt. How many people were left behind in the pull out from Saigon.

The main thing about that episode was to show Book was special to the Alliance, and my opinion that is it was an example of cludgeony story telling.

In Serenity the "evil" alliance lets the fugitives go so they can save the shipwreck.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS

Mon, February 17, 2020 15:36 - 30 posts
Appreciating the Feedback All-Stars
Sun, February 3, 2019 10:27 - 4 posts
The Writer's Resource Package
Sat, May 26, 2018 00:24 - 32 posts
Bookmarks
Sun, April 29, 2018 13:19 - 2 posts
The Expanding Verse
Sun, November 12, 2017 01:41 - 78 posts
The crow?
Sun, March 12, 2017 13:03 - 1 posts
Eager student looking for patient fanvid teacher!
Wed, November 30, 2016 19:11 - 14 posts
Tall Card Deck
Wed, September 21, 2016 21:30 - 6 posts
Any good fics on this site?
Tue, February 16, 2016 19:42 - 4 posts
My Fanfic Plans
Thu, August 6, 2015 11:38 - 1 posts
"Ode To The Final Charge of the Serenity" (Another Firefly theme inspired poem)
Mon, June 29, 2015 06:37 - 1 posts
"Serenity's Crescendo" (A Firefly themed poem)
Mon, June 29, 2015 06:33 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL