GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Evil Firefly Haters

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 21:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 39459
PAGE 3 of 4

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:46 AM

NICOLACLARKE


I'm aware that I may be inviting flames here , but I think a few of you are being a little disingenuous to claim that you saw no parallels at all between the crew of Serenity and the Confederates. I'm a UK Firefly fan who knows bugger all about American history, and even I spotted a potential analogy. Nevertheless...

Originally posted by wz:
Quote:

You can keep saying that, but (at least according to the interviews I've seen) Joss Whedon himself wouldn't agree with you. He stated several times that he based his show on the Civil War and Reconstruction. You can interpret Firefly any way you want, but that doesn't change what Joss Whedon said about it.


No, it doesn't, but saintproverbius' original point holds, IMHO. Simply because Firefly draws inspiration from that particular period of history doesn't make it a pound-for-pound analogy. Ultimately, Whedon wasn't writing a historical TV show; he was writing an SF show that evoked certain themes from history.

You can compare the crew of Serenity to the Confederates (although not all of them - Inara directly states in one ep that she was pro-unification, for example), but it's clear that they're operating in a very different environment and are motivated by different concerns to their historical counterparts. Mal and Zoe were fighting against unification, yes - but there's nothing in the show to hint that slavery, or an issue of similar magnitude, was a point of contention or even a part of the rhetoric. Immediately, then, it's obvious that the parallels are far from exact

What makes the whole thing interesting, indeed, is to see a superficially similar framework placed in a different context.

Posted by WZ:
Quote:

I wasn't directly comparing anything in Firefly to the actual Jesse James. I was comparing the show's depiction of Mal to the myths surrounding people like Jesse James, which depict them as altruistic and kind, when they were actually dangerous psychopaths who rarely, if ever, stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Robin Hood probably never existed. I was saying that Mal and his crew are an extension of this mythology - albeit not based directly on any real person. You could say that since they are fictional my comparison is meaningless, but since Joss Whedon publicly stated several times that he was basing his show on Reconstruction era ex-Confederate outlaws - like Jesse James - I would argue that it is valid.


Valid, perhaps, but whatever Jesse James may have been, Mal and his crew aren't "dangerous psycopaths" (well, except maybe Jayne). They aren't saints, either. Indeed, there's no sign that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, whether as an image or as an actual practice, plays any major part in their activities or the way they're perceived.

I suppose the closest direct statement on this matter comes the episode 'Jaynestown'. This examines how Jayne has become a folk hero in one town, due to the misinterpretation of his criminality. Granted, the ep ends with Jayne making things a little better, but it makes no attempt to hide the fact that Jayne is a bastard of questionable morals. There's a direct engagement, here, with the very false mythologising of outlaws that you (rightly) object to. If Whedon is presenting his crew as Jesse James, he's portraying a complexity there that your argument doesn't allow for, I think.

Posted by WZ:
Quote:

However, if people are going to continue to deny that the Confederacy was a white supremacist movement and wear Confederate battle flags and fly them from their houses, some - not all, mind you - of them must be buying into the whole deal, not just the mythic, self-reliant everyman part of it, and that's what I object to, and what leads to events like the one I mentioned.


True. But then, it's always possible to find someone to distort any perfectly reasonable (or less so) ideology. I don't for one minute imagine that every single person on Mal's side in the war were noble, self-reliant everymen/women. Naturally there will have been the opportunists, the fanatics, the psychopathic misanthropes. That only makes it more of a shame the show got cancelled, since Whedon excels at subverting the ideals of the 'good guys', and showing the less palatable side of things. In the end, Mal's stance on Unification is only one side of the coin in this world and I wouldn't say the show tries to portray him as uniquely right. Any halfway intelligent viewer should be able to entertain the idea that maybe - just maybe - Mal's view could be a little skewed by his own experiences.

Yes, white supremacist attitudes perpetuate evil deeds and attitudes in the world. So do misogyny and religious fundamentalism. Yet simply because these things can be extrapolated from a given mindset (such as rose-tinted memories of the Confederate side of the Civil War) doesn't make that source-mindset itself evil. It just means that it - as everything - should be approached with caution and an awareness of consquences.

Hope that made some sense, and thanks for the debate! (you evil firefly hater, you )

Nic

"Does anyone remember the part where she came at me with a butcher's knife?"
"Wacky fun..."

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

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:24 PM

WZ



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

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:50 PM

WZ


Quote:

posted by NicolaClarke:
You can compare the crew of Serenity to the Confederates (although not all of them - Inara directly states in one ep that she was pro-unification, for example), but it's clear that they're operating in a very different environment and are motivated by different concerns to their historical counterparts. Mal and Zoe were fighting against unification, yes - but there's nothing in the show to hint that slavery, or an issue of similar magnitude, was a point of contention or even a part of the rhetoric. Immediately, then, it's obvious that the parallels are far from exact



True, but sci-fi and fantasty writers have always used their medium as a way to make comments about contemporary issues - in other words using a future (or past) time and place as a smokescreen which allows them to sneak controversial statements past editors, censors, TV executives, etc. Inexact parallels (or better yet, subtle connections) only help them in this strategy. (I know - the Civil War as a contemporary issue? Well look at the fights over flying Confederate flags over state houses. Remember the Civil Rights movement, when African-Americans had to fight to get the rights they were promised after the Civil War? That was only forty years ago. How about all the militia groups who believe the Confederacy was right and are armed and training for war?) Some examples of sci-fi or fantasy used this way are Fahrenheit 451, 1984, or even some Star Trek episodes (though these were usually the worst ones - like the one with the half-black/half-white guys). Rod Serling created The Twilight Zone essentially so he could say whatever he wanted about politics, etc. without interference from the network. Certainly the parallels were also far from exact between Communist Russia and 1984 (or better yet, Animal Farm) but no one can really deny what the author was talking about. It's not sci-fi, but would you say that The Crucible has nothing to do with the McCarthy hearings just because the parallels aren't exact (certainly much less exact than Firefly and the Civil War)?

You make a good point about there being no apparent connection between slavery and the War of Unification, but it should be noted that pro-Confederates ever since 1865 having been saying the same thing about the American Civil War, i.e. that it was not about slavery, but the freedom of the individual states - much like the autonomy the independents in Firefly wanted for their planets. There's a parallel if you're looking for one - that's actually a perfect example of how Firefly put forth the Confederate version of U.S. history.

Also note that Joss Whedon in his descriptions of the show always referenced the Civil War and slavery, but also insisted that his show would have no alien races in it. I'm not suggesting anything by this except what he said - that he believes humans are the only sentient beings in the universe, and that he wanted his show to be different from other sci-fi shows, but you have to admit it's interesting that a man who wanted to make a show inspired by the Civil War removed race from it both as a physical presence and as an issue. Yes, I know he had an interracial couple on the show, but my point is, a lot of sci-fi writers would have welcomed the inclusion of alien races so that they could make some statements about racism in a metaphorical way. Instead Joss Whedon excluded alien races from his Civil War/Reconstruction allegory altogether, just as Confederacy buffs exclude race from the actual history.

Posted by WZ:
Quote:

However, if people are going to continue to deny that the Confederacy was a white supremacist movement and wear Confederate battle flags and fly them from their houses, some - not all, mind you - of them must be buying into the whole deal, not just the mythic, self-reliant everyman part of it, and that's what I object to, and what leads to events like the one I mentioned.


Posted by Nicola Clarke:
Quote:

True. But then, it's always possible to find someone to distort any perfectly reasonable (or less so) ideology.

Yes, white supremacist attitudes perpetuate evil deeds and attitudes in the world. So do misogyny and religious fundamentalism. Yet simply because these things can be extrapolated from a given mindset (such as rose-tinted memories of the Confederate side of the Civil War) doesn't make that source-mindset itself evil.

It just means that it - as everything - should be approached with caution and an awareness of consquences.



I guess I can agree with that - if seeing the Confederacy through rose-tinted glasses can been seen as a reasonable (or less so) ideology which can be distorted into a negative by nefarious, evil-doer types. However I would argue that that ideology - the Old South as a model society which held democracy more dear than the rest of the country - rather than being distorted by white supremacists (or whoever), is itself the distortion that should be approached with caution - a distortion of the truth that hides a lot of dangerous consequences for those who believe it. For instance, buying into that idea requires you to also accept that African-Americans were pretty happy as slaves or that property rights are more important than human rights (oops, they might take away my citizenship for that one, how un-American of me).


Quote:

Hope that made some sense, and thanks for the debate! (you evil firefly hater, you )
Nic



No, thank you! It was a challenge to try and answer the points you made.

-Mr. Evil, BA (working on Dr. Evil)

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 8:19 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


WZ wrote:

Quote:

True, but sci-fi and fantasty writers have always used their medium as a way to make comments about contemporary issues - in other words using a future (or past) time and place as a smokescreen which allows them to sneak controversial statements past editors, censors, TV executives, etc. Inexact parallels (or better yet, subtle connections) only help them in this strategy. (I know - the Civil War as a contemporary issue? Well look at the fights over flying Confederate flags over state houses. Remember the Civil Rights movement, when African-Americans had to fight to get the rights they were promised after the Civil War? That was only forty years ago. How about all the militia groups who believe the Confederacy was right and are armed and training for war?) Some examples of sci-fi or fantasy used this way are Fahrenheit 451, 1984, or even some Star Trek episodes (though these were usually the worst ones - like the one with the half-black/half-white guys). Rod Serling created The Twilight Zone essentially so he could say whatever he wanted about politics, etc. without interference from the network. Certainly the parallels were also far from exact between Communist Russia and 1984 (or better yet, Animal Farm) but no one can really deny what the author was talking about. It's not sci-fi, but would you say that The Crucible has nothing to do with the McCarthy hearings just because the parallels aren't exact (certainly much less exact than Firefly and the Civil War)?


Wow. Where to start w/ that one.....?

I agree that authors use their stories to openly air their views or opinions of subjects, politics, or history, but are you certain that is Mr Whedon's motivation w/ Firefly? If so, please state your evidence. Perhaps he just used the Reconstruction period as a template for his story, free of any personal feelings or prejudices.

Sure there are correlations between Firefly & the aftermath of the War, but that does not prove any conspiracy by Joss, cast, or staff to overthrow the current government and instate a modern day Confederacy.

The problem w/ conspiracy theories is that anyone can come up w/ one if they look hard enough at anything. Look at the current shouts of racisim that were on MSN the other day. A group is trying to claim Lord of the Rings is racist because the side of good are all white, and the side of evil (orcs, goblins, etc) are all "dark skinned" races. They went so far as to say that the forces of Sauron riding war elephants is a direct reference to "Africa" and its people. Utterly ridiculous, and very much bordering on paranoia if you ask me.

As for the controversy over the Confederate flags flying over capitol buildings, I would agree that there is no place for them over government buildings, but I disagree w/ the efforts to totally do away w/ them and of many be so intolerant of them in other areas. There are many Confederate gravesites and monuments where those flags do belong, and should remain. If they offend some people, they are free not to visit those sites.

As far as Civil Rights groups having to fight for the rights given to African Americans after the War, you can split that blame between the Northern states and the government in Washington DC as much as any Southern state. For one hundred years, the federal government did nothing to get those rights instated. I believe that same federal government also failed to deliver on the fourty acres & a mule that they promised to slaves.

I could point & counterpoint about the War of Northern Aggression and the real reasons the Confederacy (and my ancestors who owned noslaves) fought, but there is no need to hash that here and burn up bandwidth. If you feel the need to debate me on it, I invite you to email me @ browncoat1@yahoo.com.

Quote:

You make a good point about there being no apparent connection between slavery and the War of Unification, but it should be noted that pro-Confederates ever since 1865 having been saying the same thing about the American Civil War, i.e. that it was not about slavery, but the freedom of the individual states - much like the autonomy the independents in Firefly wanted for their planets. There's a parallel if you're looking for one - that's actually a perfect example of how Firefly put forth the Confederate version of U.S. history.


I have to question the validity of the arguement that the War was about slavery, or that slavery was the major issue. It is a fact that a little less than 6% of the population of the South had slaves, and of that percentage, less than 25% actually fought in the War. So if more than 95% of the men that took up arms for the Confederacy did not own slaves, and there is no documentation or stories of drafting soldiers at gunpoint, the theory of slavery being the reason behind the Confederacy taking up arms really doesn't hold water.

Quote:

Also note that Joss Whedon in his descriptions of the show always referenced the Civil War and slavery, but also insisted that his show would have no alien races in it. I'm not suggesting anything by this except what he said - that he believes humans are the only sentient beings in the universe, and that he wanted his show to be different from other sci-fi shows, but you have to admit it's interesting that a man who wanted to make a show inspired by the Civil War removed race from it both as a physical presence and as an issue. Yes, I know he had an interracial couple on the show, but my point is, a lot of sci-fi writers would have welcomed the inclusion of alien races so that they could make some statements about racism in a metaphorical way. Instead Joss Whedon excluded alien races from his Civil War/Reconstruction allegory altogether, just as Confederacy buffs exclude race from the actual history.


I am sorry, but that sounds like you are reaching to establish the slavery/glorification of the Confederate cause point.

Could it be that Whedon did not include alien races for other reasons, such as alien make up is expensive and time consuming? Or perhaps he wanted to focus on human struggle and their place in the universe without complicating the story line w/ aliens, their civilizations, histories, politics, etc? Sounds more reasonable to me than some darker intent on the part of Joss.


However, if people are going to continue to deny that the Confederacy was a white supremacist movement and wear Confederate battle flags and fly them from their houses, some - not all, mind you - of them must be buying into the whole deal, not just the mythic, self-reliant everyman part of it, and that's what I object to, and what leads to events like the one I mentioned.


I do not wear Confederate flag apparel, fly one over my house or have a bumper sticker on my car, but that does not mean I am not proud of my heritage. Rather it is to avoid conflict w/ people who have the misconception you mentioned above that the Confederacy was a "white supremacist movement", which I find a laughable statement at best. I have mentioned above that less than 6% of the population of the South owned slaves, and less than 25% of that number fought, so to say the Confederacy was some sinister supremacist movement is ridiculous.

I do not force my views or opinions on anyone, nor do I force my heritage on anyone, regardless of race, religion, or political stance. I will gladly debate anyone on history so long as it remains civil and does not get personal or heated, as any intellectual conversation should be carried on.

I respect your opinions and views, but I respectfully must disagree with them and question the sources you base your theories on.

Quote:

I guess I can agree with that - if seeing the Confederacy through rose-tinted glasses can been seen as a reasonable (or less so) ideology which can be distorted into a negative by nefarious, evil-doer types. However I would argue that that ideology - the Old South as a model society which held democracy more dear than the rest of the country - rather than being distorted by white supremacists (or whoever), is itself the distortion that should be approached with caution - a distortion of the truth that hides a lot of dangerous consequences for those who believe it. For instance, buying into that idea requires you to also accept that African-Americans were pretty happy as slaves or that property rights are more important than human rights (oops, they might take away my citizenship for that one, how un-American of me).


I do not think that saying the Confederacy was not white supremacists is the same as saying African Americans were happy as slaves. No human is content to be slaves.

The problem here is the period and frame of reference. Slavery was introduced to the United States before it was even a country. Many slaves came to the US through New York harbor, and it was not until the 1840's that slavery was abolished in the North. The South did not have the luxury of abolishing slavery as it had come to rely on slavery as a cheap labor force to harvest agricultural goods; goods the North readily bought. It is a shame the North & South could not work together to find a solution to the problem and end slavery while not destroying the economy of the South by ending slavery w/ no system in place to fill the vacuum left by the loss of labor.

I welcome your rebuttal, but would ask that if it is lengthy to email me @ browncoat1@yahoo.com so as not to inconvenience our fellow board members with lengthy posts.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 8:19 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Darn double posts.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 8:32 AM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I welcome your rebuttal, but would ask that if it is lengthy to email me @ browncoat1@yahoo.com so as not to inconvenience our fellow board members with lengthy posts.

Hey, then we miss out on all the fun.


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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 10:46 AM

LORDJ


I am really glad to see this discussion because the issues Willie (if I can call you by your first name) identified bothered me from the first time I saw the show. I do love firefly, think it should never have been cancelled, and am looking forward to the movie, tho. Also Willie I am finishing a Ph D in US History, and can't help myself: run, run from grad school before it's too late!

What's at stake here is a lot more fundamental than whether or not the Independents are a strict analogue for the Confederacy, and for me the increasingly detailed arguments about the validity of this point are moot. Joss said what he said, the question is what it means. For me what this brings up is this: is it possible to separate American ideals of freedom from the context in which they were created? Can we believe Jefferson writing "all men are created equal" in the Declaration, while not only owning slaves but also arguing for black inferiority in "Notes on Virginia," to give one example? My answer is a big ol' NO.

The most recent article Willie linked is on point here. It would have been really nice if Joss had wanted to actually grapple with race and freedom, because I think he's the shiz, but that apparently wasn't what interested him, and like many white leftists he found it more convenient to ignore this aspect of the history he found so interesting. I still think Firefly is a great show and hope we get to see more of it, tho.

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 11:17 AM

LORDJ


Argh! Also wanted to respond to browncoat.

I think you are conflating two separate issues. If you look at a)the debates in Southern state legislatures after the initial wave of secessions in 1861, or b)pronouncements of the political leaders of the Confederacy during the war, you will find that, for those folks the war was precisely about the freedom to continue enslaving African-Americans. That is to say, the political class of the Confederacy was not just proslavery but believed slavery to be the one and only reason for secession.

The question of why white southerners (something on the order of 2/3 of the white male population between the ages of 20 and 45 or something) fought in the war is of course a very different one. Not doubt many joined for the reasons you claim your ancestors did, browncoat, because they believed their country was being invaded by an essentially foreign army.

I also think it is likely that many heads of households who didn't own slaves had a reasonable aspiration of slave ownership, and that owning slaves and farming commercial products like tobacco, rice, and cotton represented what little upward mobility existed in the antebellum south, esp. in the context of the 1850s cotton boom. James Oakes notes, for example, that while the majority of slaves lived and died on large plantations, the majority of slaveholders owned one or two slaves.

To be perfectly clear, I do respect your opinion browncoat and am in no way trying to impugn you or your family. I am trying to suggest that one has to grapple with the contradictory legacy of the civil war as fully as possible; and to claim that symbols of the Confederacy can be somehow divorced from the institution of slavery is an argument that doesn't hold historical water for me.

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 12:15 PM

SPIKESPIEGEL


There seems to be a notion that if Joss takes the Reconstruction as a template for his SF series, he is beholden to every issue in it. Yes, slavery weighs heavily when you start talking Civil War, but Joss did not make slavery an issue of the Unification War. And he wasn't obligated to. Does his portrayal of Book have to address the recent rash of publicity about "celibate" Catholic priests molesting children? Of course not.

The obvious distaste for slavery shown by Mal, who is on the side analogous to the Confederates, was enough of a nod to that question, a simple statement from Joss, for the truly stupid, that yes, he doesn't favor slavery. And the Alliance/Blue Sun disregard for River's basic human rights further, if anyone NEEDS it, distances the Alliance side from any image as Noble Northerners Fighting Only to End Slavery.

So the point should be moot. Joss has not created a pro-slavery show, nor even a show in which slavery is an issue.

And since the North is considered the Good Guys on the issue of slavery in the Civil War, where are the reactionary paranoiacs complaining that Joss is effectively making the North, thus the U.S. Gov't., out to be evil, totalitarian hat fetishists? Which is an argument (maybe minus the hats) used by some of our foes these days ... thus meaning that Joss is pro-Al Quaeda! A-HA!

'Cause that argument is just as empty, but less emotionally overcharged, than the idea that his desire to tell the tale of a wounded idealist who fought totalitarianism and lost is somehow a big wet kiss to the slavery of Africans and African Americans.

Once he set up that idea of Mal losing a war, looking at the Reconstruction to help him flesh out what the aftermath of such a conflict might look like was simply good logic, and it tied in with his Western styling of the show.

There just ain't nothin' else to it. Why is no one blasting Star Trek's Romulans, clunkily styled after the Roman Empire, for being a tacit blessing of that empire's slavery, conquest and feeding-of-Christians-to-lions?

Can we now move onto the next thread, the one where because Joss created a romanticized concept of courtesan-geisha prostitution, he's also in favor of street-corner crack whores and the subjugation and objectification of women in general? Joss is clearly in favor of overdressed street pimps beating up and emotionally abusing/manipulating hookers and keeping them essentially in slavery. He is a bad man, and we must not watch his insidious shows.

Or maybe a thred in which, because he theorized our Earth getting "used up," Joss is either opposed to ecological conservation, or a fatalist convinced that recycling can't help and we should all just litter the countryside with styrofoam packing "peanuts"? Sic the Sierra Club and Greenpeace on his Hollywood ass!

"Bang."

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

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 3:28 PM

MARK73


"The Internet has given everyone in America a voice, and apparently everyone in America has chosen to use that voice to b*tch about movies."
--Kevin Smith

It's fiction. If you like it, enjoy it. If you don't like it, ignore it. But if you over-analyze it, you'll almost certainly kill it.

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 6:07 AM

LORDJ


Spike-u:

I don't think any of the things you wrote. I take Joss to be a committed leftist whose admirable goal is producing gripping entertainment in accord with his political beliefs.

I do think that it is important and fun to discuss the kinds of choices that artists we like make; what the choices are, what kind of effects they have on their work, what might have happened if they made different choices, etc. I was interested in this thread precisely because I had seen little discussion of an issue which occurred to me early on in watching the show.

To reiterate the point I was trying to make: while I love the show, I think it is unfortunate that it follows a broad and long-lasting cultural trend in which people believe (falsely, as I wrote) that one discuss the nature of freedom as it was fought over during the Civil War/Reconstruction (and one of the issues this thread has settled is that this is precisely what inspired Joss about the show) and not grapple with race and slavery. The fact, for example, that our nation has a museum in D.C. dedicated to the Holocaust--a crime committed certainly with the knowledge of our political leaders but not their complicity--but nothing which mentions slavery--a longer-lasting institution built into the very fabric of our society and politics--is another example of how we as a society continue to think we can exalt our committment to freedom while we elide the crimes we have committed in its name. In this sense I agree with Willie Zaza and think he raised an important question.

But I think my final point is different than his, to wit: Wouldn't it be nice, I wrote, if an artist so gifted and politically committed as Joss is chose to use ff to go after precisely this subject instead of drawing on the social context it created and yet ignoring it.

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 6:35 AM

ARRGHYLE


It would be neat if Joss & Co. could tackle an institution that's been around as long as there have been people. But they can't solve the problems of the past.

They can expand on it, show people a theme, and help them come to their own conclusions. Allegory is a more powerful tool than a museum. It is much more insidious.

Firefly is about freedom or its lack.

I have examples for just about every member of the crew, but I'll use the biggest one; Inara.

Inara sells herself into indentured servitude with every transaction. She willingly lets go of her freedoms for money. She sells herself.
Yep, she gets the money. Yep, she picks who she will and will not sell herself to. Yep, she has respect, because her profession is integrated into society. She is also shown a profound lack of respect, because she can be bought. Her clients all see her as a commodity.

That's what Mal hates about her job. And it's what he hates about himself. He sells his self-respect each and every time he commits a crime. Part of his choices come from getting back at the evil central governement. Part of it is because he's desperate to keep the little freedom he has left.

Firefly is about allegorical slavery - in addition to all of the examples of indentured servitude we've seen. That's not a copout on Joss' part. Dramatically, it's better than a preachy over-the-top "slavery is bad" bill board.
It's harder to see, so it's harder to ignore.

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 7:28 AM

WZ


Quote:

Posted by browncoat:
I welcome your rebuttal, but would ask that if it is lengthy to email me @ browncoat1@yahoo.com so as not to inconvenience our fellow board members with lengthy posts.



This post won't take long, partly because I've been spending too much time posting on this site and because I think Lordj answered your post better than I could.

First off, I want to say thanks for keeping the debate civil. There was one thing in your post I wanted to refer to:

Quote:

The problem here is the period and frame of reference. Slavery was introduced to the United States before it was even a country. Many slaves came to the US through New York harbor, and it was not until the 1840's that slavery was abolished in the North. The South did not have the luxury of abolishing slavery as it had come to rely on slavery as a cheap labor force to harvest agricultural goods; goods the North readily bought. It is a shame the North & South could not work together to find a solution to the problem and end slavery while not destroying the economy of the South by ending slavery w/ no system in place to fill the vacuum left by the loss of labor.


Who forced the South to base their economy on a cash crop instead of a more flexible, diversified, industrial/agrarian economy like the North and Northwest had? Didn't the South (or at least, important Southern leaders like James Hammond) insist that an agrarian economy, based on Slavery, was the basis of the ideal society? They chose to become dependent on cotton (and slavery) because it was highly lucrative and suited their ideas of civilized culture. New England made tons of money on the triangular trade (molasses to rum to slaves) but they also lead the abolitionist movement, so you can't argue that economics forced anyone into doing anything.

The South also had plenty to do with ruining their own ecomony. The war and the end of slavery did not necessarily mean the end of exports of cotton, but Southern leaders during the war decided to cut off supplies of cotton to England, believing this would help to force that country - which had a hugely important textile industry - to enter the war on their side. Apparently it never occurred to them that England controlled one-sixth of the planet at that time and could easily find other places (India and Egypt) to grow their own cotton. Consequently, after the war the South's monopoly on cotton was gone forever - by their own doing. Even without all that, basing their whole economy on a single cash crop was a bad idea in the first place.

It is a shame that the North and South did not work to together to end slavery while maintaining the southern economy, but since the South did not want to end slavery, I don't see how this could have happened. Southern leaders wanted slavery to expand into former Mexican territory and even to Cuba and further into Central and South America if possible. Most of the filibusters like William Walker who were trying to take over Latin American countries were southerners who hoped to expand the slave power. Northern leaders who opposed slavery, such as Lincoln (at least early on) were perfectly willing to allow it to continue where it existed, and even expand provided the number of slave and free states remained equal. They did this in the spirit of compromise (and the spirit of States' Rights-!), but the South saw it as a first move in an attempt to end slavery altogether and considered that they were being persecuted. Any spirit of compromise that might have lead to ending slavery peacefully existed, for the most part, only in the North. It takes two to tango.

Also, speaking of State's Rights, it should be noted that, in theory at least, the Dred Scot decision made slavery legal in every state when it was decided that if a southerner brought his slaves into a free state they, as property rights are inviolable, must remain slaves. So in that Supreme Court decision the South's law was forced on the rest of the country - where were State's Rights then if New York or Massachussets had to allow slavery to exist within its borders? But I digress...

To depict the Southern slave holding aristocracy as victims of uncontrollable economic history who had slavery thrust upon them is totally at odds with what actually happened.

Well I guess this was kind of long post after all.


-Willie Zaza

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 7:42 AM

NICOLACLARKE


I'm finding this whole thread fascinating (see! TV *can* be good for you ). As I said above, I'm shamefully ignorant about north American history, beyond the 1920s/30s, but after all this am duly inspired to learn more. Anyone care to recommend some introductory reading material on the Civil War and after? (I'm a neophyte on this period, but as a postgrad history student I'm accustomed to weighty tomes...). Feel free to email me: clytemnestra@inorbit.com.

I agree (again) that simply drawing upon a particular period doesn't oblige Whedon to engage with all of said period's concerns. I'd also reiterate my earlier point that we've only really seen Mal's obviously biased perspective on events. He was an extremely minor figure in what went on; he had no access to the chain of command, and probably had no concrete idea of the agendas being pursued of those above him.

Perhaps this is the point. I rather got the impression that after the battle of Serenity Vallery, the ordinary soldiers (on both sides?) were left out in the cold. The series isn't about the ones who made the postwar peace settlements; it's about those who got screwed over by events taking place (literally) over their heads. Mal is the ordinary soldier, who fought for what seemed from his perspective to be an ideal (independence/autonomy), but he had no control over its terms, its ending, or its real motivation.

Maybe the war in Firefly really *was* about independence. Maybe it was about something more sinister (preserving slavery, in the historical analogy). Either way, Mal and others like him were not responsible for anything more than their individual commitment to what it appeared to them to be. And, as has been said, Mal has given every indication of being personally opposed to slavery.

I still say it's difficult to justify castigating the entire show for a historical standpoint that there is only evidence-by-analogy it is adhering to. And what is fiction for if not to examine human attitudes in all their variety? We can admire how something is written without agreeing wholly with it.

Hmm, wittering.

Quote:

Originally posted by arrghyle:
Firefly is about freedom or its lack.

I have examples for just about every member of the crew, but I'll use the biggest one; Inara.

[snip]

That's what Mal hates about her job. And it's what he hates about himself. He sells his self-respect each and every time he commits a crime. Part of his choices come from getting back at the evil central governement. Part of it is because he's desperate to keep the little freedom he has left.

Firefly is about allegorical slavery - in addition to all of the examples of indentured servitude we've seen. That's not a copout on Joss' part. Dramatically, it's better than a preachy over-the-top "slavery is bad" bill board.
It's harder to see, so it's harder to ignore.



Anyway, I think what I've quoted above is one of the most interesting points I've seen. I'd be interested to read your interpretations of some of the other characters.

Will return to consider this further.

"No power in the 'verse can stop me."

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 8:08 AM

WZ


Well, a couple more things...

Posted by Browncoat:
Quote:

As far as Civil Rights groups having to fight for the rights given to African Americans after the War, you can split that blame between the Northern states and the government in Washington DC as much as any Southern state. For one hundred years, the federal government did nothing to get those rights instated. I believe that same federal government also failed to deliver on the fourty acres & a mule that they promised to slaves.


Except it was the Federal Government that had to declare martial law and send in an airborne division to integrate the high school in Little Rock against the wishes of those who ran the state. While the Federal govt. did nothing for a hundred years to insure the Civil Rights of black people - a passive sin, the Southern states were actively returning them to a state little better (or even worse) than slavery by enacting unfair poll taxes and requirements that prevented them from voting, and other things, such as the sharecropping system - an active sin, which the Federal govt had to correct in the sixties. The FBI also had to go after the perpetrators of murders committed againgst southern blacks and northerners who compaigned in the south to help them get the vote when local law enforcement looked the other way or even committed such crimes themselves. You can blame the North for not enforcing Federal Law, but does that absolve the South from blame for actively undermining it? If someone murders someone and the cops don't arrest him, obviously that's terrible, but does that make the original murder OK?

The much repeated offer of "forty acres and a mule" was, I believe, (though I could be mistaken), an unofficial offer, made - as a suggestion - by a Union General, I think it was Sherman, which had no support from the government in the first place.

Quote:

I do not wear Confederate flag apparel, fly one over my house or have a bumper sticker on my car, but that does not mean I am not proud of my heritage. Rather it is to avoid conflict w/ people who have the misconception you mentioned above that the Confederacy was a "white supremacist movement", which I find a laughable statement at best. I have mentioned above that less than 6% of the population of the South owned slaves, and less than 25% of that number fought, so to say the Confederacy was some sinister supremacist movement is ridiculous.


Certainly you should be proud of your heritage, but If I were you, I would be actively distancing myself from a war that was started by rich men who callously took advantage of the patriotism of your forebears and sent them to die for an economic system they got little benefit from. I'm Italian, Irish, German, Albanian And Welsh, but I'm not going to go around making excuses for the behavior of Mafiosi, The IRA, Nazis, Albanian bandits, and Catherine Zeta-Jones's dubious choices in the marriage department. The majority you mention, among them your ancestors, didn't start the war, they just fought it (a reason to be proud), so why they fought is irrelevent to what it was about, except in terms of why those individual soldiers chose to fight - as opposed the larger political and economic reasons for the war, which is what I've been talking about. The minority of slave owners are the ones who ran the state governments (which is why for instance the non-slaveholding Virginia upcountry, who didn't want the war, seceded from the state and became West Virginia). South Carolina, whose population was over 50% slave, seceded first and fired on Fort Sumter. If you read the documents in which the Southern states stated their intention to secede, you will see that they list the protection of slavery as the reason (among others). Rich man's war, poor man's fight, as usual. Show some real respect for your ancestors and, at least symbolically, tell the plantation owners to go to hell and leave the ordinary people out of their fight.

-Willie Zaza

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 8:28 AM

BLACKOUTNIGHTS


It's entirely amazing to me that Firefly has generated such controversy. However, that's a good thing - especially in the case of Firefly where it seems to revolve around a metaphorical characterization of history.

That's the sign of quality television, in my view. Obviously, WZ objects to the show and some points of view reflected in it. But he must have found it entertaining to have sat through several episodes - and continue to respond here.

Personally, I enjoy it greatly. A host of characters experiencing life from radically different viewpoints. Let's hope we get more stories from the Firefly universe to add fuel to the fire.

"Well, hello Mr. Fancy Pants."

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 9:10 AM

WZ


Quote:

lordj wrote:
I am really glad to see this discussion because the issues Willie (if I can call you by your first name) identified bothered me from the first time I saw the show.



Thanks for your thoughts. As I am a mixed-race, product of Northern Catholic slums (when my Irish grandmother married my Italian grandfather, her father said "why couldn't you have married a white man?") I certainly will never stand on the formalities that our Southern neighbors - in their slavish aping of the manners of Perfidious Albion - insist upon. In short, feel free to call me by my first name.

Quote:

Also Willie I am finishing a Ph D in US History, and can't help myself: run, run from grad school before it's too late!


Good advice I'm sure. If only I had marketable skills instead of those of a historian I might be able to find work. Instead a "career" as a permanent student looms, death-like, on my horizon.


-WZ

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 9:19 AM

WZ


Quote:

The fact, for example, that our nation has a museum in D.C. dedicated to the Holocaust--a crime committed certainly with the knowledge of our political leaders but not their complicity--but nothing which mentions slavery--a longer-lasting institution built into the very fabric of our society and politics--is another example of how we as a society continue to think we can exalt our committment to freedom while we elude the crimes we have committed in its name. In this sense I agree with Willie Zaza and think he raised an important question.


Actually there are plans to build a museum of slavery in Fredericksburg, VA - where I went to college. I think it is a National Park service project - if not that, then a project of the State of Virginia. Naturally, there is a lot of controversy about how it should be presented (and even if it should be in Fredericksburg) so there's much delay. As far as I know, not living in Fredericksburg anymore, they may have cancelled it (?). In any case there are plans to build such a museum at some point (and it's not the Civil War theme park Disney wanted to build - remember that?).



-WZ

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 9:55 AM

WZ


Evil double post.

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 9:56 AM

WZ


Quote:

Posted by NicolaClarke:
I agree (again) that simply drawing upon a particular period doesn't oblige Whedon to engage with all of said period's concerns.



Once again, you made a lot of good points that are hard to argue with, so I'd just like to put forth Ang Lee's film Ride With The Devil (if I have the title right) as an example of how someone can tell a story with Confederate heroes and still address the issue of slavery head on - while not having to distort (or selectively edit) history in order to justify the actions of the main characters.

Also, Jewel (Kilcher) looks good in Victorian underwear.

-Willie Zaza

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

Friday, January 2, 2004 5:20 PM

SPIKESPIEGEL


Hey, LordJ,

Sure, your points are taken. I just noticed that at the top of the thread there was much tension and hysteria. The idea that Firefly is bad because Joss chose not to address slavery (or the historical lack of women's rights, or bias against Catholicism, or the fact that poor white folk not owning land were treated, sure, WAY better than non-whites, but not exactly as well as the landed gentry) is ludicrous.

When you say, "Wouldn't it've been nice if Joss, or someone, were to address these things," I say, hell yeah. Could make a good story. Just not the one Joss is telling. This far down this ten-mile thread, I see that everyone's very civil, more relaxed, often erudite as the devil addressing Congress, and even funny (do I not see the demonized Willie himself saying Jewel looks cute in bloomers? Go, WZ!), so I applaud the continuation of this thread, and the efforts of its participants.

I'm just glad that we can say, "Hey, Firefly raises this issue in my mind," and have a conversation, rather than dictate what constraints to put on Joss and other creators when they look for inspirations for their fictions.

Happy new year.






"Bang."

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

Saturday, January 3, 2004 10:53 AM

LORDJ


Aaarghyle--
There really IS more than one way to skin a gorram cat! I really liked your analysis, it makes a lot of sense.

Spike--props.

NicolaClarke--this thread is so long already, what the heck...
Willie recommended Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution which is weighty (600p!) but fun to read, recent and comprehensive.
Also: Willie Lee Rose, Rehearsals for Reconstruction, focuses on Federal policy in the Sea Islands of GA during the CW, as a test case for some of the solutions proposed later.
Gerald Jaynes, Branches Without Roots, is an economic history of Rec. that is interesting but I found it difficult to get through.
Albion Tourgee, A Fool's Errand, is a great fictional account by a white Ohioan and CW vet who moved to North Carolina after the war and became politically active.
I also think that this Monday 1/5 or next Monday 1/12 PBS is showing the beginning of a two-part documentary about Reconstruction.

Willie--you've clearly got marketable writing skills! And send me an email at cfjsc2@eiu.edu so I can give you unsolicited advice about grad school.

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

Monday, January 5, 2004 9:06 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


LordJ wrote:

Quote:

I think you are conflating two separate issues. If you look at a)the debates in Southern state legislatures after the initial wave of secessions in 1861, or b)pronouncements of the political leaders of the Confederacy during the war, you will find that, for those folks the war was precisely about the freedom to continue enslaving African-Americans. That is to say, the political class of the Confederacy was not just proslavery but believed slavery to be the one and only reason for secession.


I have to respectfully disagree with you LordJ. Though no one can deny that slavery was an issue, I do not think it the "only reason for secession". There are other matters, listed by the states that left the union in their declarations of secession, not the least of which is the matter of state's rights to self government. The Constitution specifies that any powers not given to the central government are reserved for the states themselves. Many Southern states were afraid that Lincoln and his Federal gov't would incroach on those rights. Many of the Founding Fathers were from Virginia and other Southern States and they were strongly anti-Federalist, not wanting any central government to hold unlimited power over them for fear of a return to the type of system they suffered under English rule.

Granted, slavery and its abolishment were a concern, especially amongst rich land owners and politicians. No doubt many of these influential people put their own spin on things in order to maintain their powerbases, but could not the same be said of the North?

Lincoln is quoted in many debates and in personal writings as not truly caring if African Americans were ever freed, so long as the Union was preserved. In a 1858 debate, Lincoln said he felt the whites should always maintain a dominate role to the black man, and that he did not abdicate their voting or holding any office.

Many Northern generals held slaves, and did so until the ratification of the 13th amendment, in December of 1865, eight months after the war, that most of those men gave up their slaves. Some held on to their slaves until as late as 1868 or 1869. Grant himself kept slaves until 1868 being quoted as saying that "good help was so difficult to find" and he was loathe to see them go.

Apparently politics and men in power on both sides played the "slavery" card to their own advantage.

Quote:

The question of why white southerners (something on the order of 2/3 of the white male population between the ages of 20 and 45 or something) fought in the war is of course a very different one. Not doubt many joined for the reasons you claim your ancestors did, browncoat, because they believed their country was being invaded by an essentially foreign army.


I agree with you totally on that point. You might also add that many went off in search of glory and some grand adventure. Looking through old letters and the personal journey of one of my ancestors has yielded a feeling from some that the war would be short and that it was some great adventure and a chance to heap honor and glory on themselves and their family name.


Quote:

I also think it is likely that many heads of households who didn't own slaves had a reasonable aspiration of slave ownership, and that owning slaves and farming commercial products like tobacco, rice, and cotton represented what little upward mobility existed in the antebellum south, esp. in the context of the 1850s cotton boom. James Oakes notes, for example, that while the majority of slaves lived and died on large plantations, the majority of slaveholders owned one or two slaves.


I don't agree with your belief that "many" heads of households aspired to slave ownership. From records and receipts on display in the Museum of the Confederacy here in Richmond, VA, slaves sold at public auction for far more than any household could hope to amass in several years. I have personally seen receipts showing a total for one slave from $2500.00 to $4000.00. I am not sure what that would equate to in today's economy, but I know it was a great deal of money in the 1860's and far more than I daresay that 90% of the Southern population could spare for labor.

Quote:

I am trying to suggest that one has to grapple with the contradictory legacy of the civil war as fully as possible; and to claim that symbols of the Confederacy can be somehow divorced from the institution of slavery is an argument that doesn't hold historical water for me.


Again I have to disagree with you. I respect your opinion, and understand where you are coming from, but I think it is a matter of perception and your interpretation of history.

I do not see slavery when I see the stars and bars; the Confederate battle flag. Instead, I see the spirit, the bravery, and the honor of the soldiers of the Confederacy who fought and died to protect their homes, their families, and their way of life from an armed invader.

I can see how African Americans or others may automatically associate it with slavery, or hate groups thanks to such ignorant racists as the K.K.K., but I think that one view should not damn a symbol.

Louis Farrakhan himself said it best when he said that African Americans spent more years in chains beneath the flag of the United States than they ever did under the Confederate flag. The only difference is that the Union used slavery as their rallying point, and freed the slaves. How different would it have been if the Confederacy won, and freed the slaves, seeing it as an immoral institution that could no longer exist? Would they then revere the stars and bars and damn the flag of the U.S.? Food for thought, no?

WZ wrote:
Quote:

Who forced the South to base their economy on a cash crop instead of a more flexible, diversified, industrial/agrarian economy like the North and Northwest had? Didn't the South (or at least, important Southern leaders like James Hammond) insist that an agrarian economy, based on Slavery, was the basis of the ideal society? They chose to become dependent on cotton (and slavery) because it was highly lucrative and suited their ideas of civilized culture. New England made tons of money on the triangular trade (molasses to rum to slaves) but they also lead the abolitionist movement, so you can't argue that economics forced anyone into doing anything.


I think cash crops were the basis of the Southern economy due to geography, climate, the people that settled there, and the needs of the country at that time. I do not think that the first settlers into the Southern regions of the U.S. thought "Wow! We can settle here, lay on our butts and enslave a race while we cash in". That is ridiculous and nothing more than an assumption.

More likely it was the fact that the temperate southern portion of the country was more suited to crops than the north. The land and climate certainly supported crops, and the North was eager to buy them. If they were not necessary, then why did everyone want them? Why did the North not plant their own tobacco and cotton?

I do not recall James Hammond ever saying "an agrarian economy, based on Slavery, was the basis of the ideal society". If I am in error, please point me to a text where he is documented as saying that. In his "Cotton is King" speech he does make mention of the profitable markets of cotton and tobacco, and how the south was content to be left alone, but I do not see any comment like the one you mention.

As far as the abolitionist movement, I don't think that New England or the north had a corner on that market. Many in the South felt slavery was wrong and freed slaves and participated in the Underground Railroad. Many leaders of the Confederacy did not own slaves, such as Robert E Lee, JEB Stuart, Johnston, and AP Hill to name a few. To villianize an entire society for the crimes of a few is ludicrous.

Quote:

The South also had plenty to do with ruining their own ecomony. The war and the end of slavery did not necessarily mean the end of exports of cotton, but Southern leaders during the war decided to cut off supplies of cotton to England, believing this would help to force that country - which had a hugely important textile industry - to enter the war on their side. Apparently it never occurred to them that England controlled one-sixth of the planet at that time and could easily find other places (India and Egypt) to grow their own cotton. Consequently, after the war the South's monopoly on cotton was gone forever - by their own doing. Even without all that, basing their whole economy on a single cash crop was a bad idea in the first place.


Please cite your sources for leaders of the South cutting off cotton to England to coerce them into entering the war. I do not recall that anywhere. What I do know of, and can point out in books and receipts in the Museum of the Confederacy, are exchanges of Enfield rifles and medical supplies for cotton and tobacco with England throughout the War.

The South was constantly competeting for England's business against Indian and Egyptian cotton. That is not something that came about due to some plot by the South's leaders to force England to enter on their side.

Cotton was not the sole cash crop of the South. Do no forget tobacco, lumber, and other agricultural goods.

Quote:

It is a shame that the North and South did not work to together to end slavery while maintaining the southern economy, but since the South did not want to end slavery, I don't see how this could have happened. Southern leaders wanted slavery to expand into former Mexican territory and even to Cuba and further into Central and South America if possible. Most of the filibusters like William Walker who were trying to take over Latin American countries were southerners who hoped to expand the slave power. Northern leaders who opposed slavery, such as Lincoln (at least early on) were perfectly willing to allow it to continue where it existed, and even expand provided the number of slave and free states remained equal. They did this in the spirit of compromise (and the spirit of States' Rights-!), but the South saw it as a first move in an attempt to end slavery altogether and considered that they were being persecuted. Any spirit of compromise that might have lead to ending slavery peacefully existed, for the most part, only in the North. It takes two to tango.


I would not say that slave owners and politicians were the South, though it seems they spoke for them, much to the detriment of everyone. Many in the South called for an end of slavery, including many of their greatest leaders, such as Lee, Jackson, Hill, Longstreet, and Stuart. Lee and Jackson proposed the ending of slavery before and throughout the war, to end the North's excuse of invasion as an attempt to end slavery and to remove the stigma of that institution. Had politicians listened to the leaders, I wonder how long the North's invasion would have continued. No doubt without slavery as a concern, France and England would have been more active in shipping arms and supplies to the CSA.

I am convinced that Lincoln did not care for the plight of African American as much as history books would have people believe. In his own words he is a closet racist. He believed the black man inferior and not worthy of holding office, voting, or owning land. He stated many times that he would leave every slave in chains if it meant bringing the Southern states back into the union. Sounds to me more like a politician worrying about keeping a portion of the country with valuable cash crops the North needed.

As for the North being the only ones willing to compromise, I would point to the many peace delegations sent to Washington during the course of the War with orders to do anything to establish peace, up to and including the abolishment of slavery. Lincoln refused to speak to them unless the South unconditionally reentered the Union. The only point the South would not compromise was the forfeiture of its independence. Doesn't sound to me as if the North was to willing to compromise.

Quote:

Also, speaking of State's Rights, it should be noted that, in theory at least, the Dred Scot decision made slavery legal in every state when it was decided that if a southerner brought his slaves into a free state they, as property rights are inviolable, must remain slaves. So in that Supreme Court decision the South's law was forced on the rest of the country - where were State's Rights then if New York or Massachussets had to allow slavery to exist within its borders? But I digress...


If that is the only State Rights infringed upon by the Union in the North, they were better off than the South. Funny that when New England or other Northern states profitted from slave trafficing or the fruits of their labors that they did not complain very loudly. If it was such an issue, why not boycott Southern goods? If it was goods gained by the labor of slaves, it seems the "morally upright" North would have refused to feed the South their money. Guess morals only extend as far as they don't outweigh your wants.

Quote:

Except it was the Federal Government that had to declare martial law and send in an airborne division to integrate the high school in Little Rock against the wishes of those who ran the state. While the Federal govt. did nothing for a hundred years to insure the Civil Rights of black people - a passive sin, the Southern states were actively returning them to a state little better (or even worse) than slavery by enacting unfair poll taxes and requirements that prevented them from voting, and other things, such as the sharecropping system - an active sin, which the Federal govt had to correct in the sixties. The FBI also had to go after the perpetrators of murders committed againgst southern blacks and northerners who compaigned in the south to help them get the vote when local law enforcement looked the other way or even committed such crimes themselves. You can blame the North for not enforcing Federal Law, but does that absolve the South from blame for actively undermining it? If someone murders someone and the cops don't arrest him, obviously that's terrible, but does that make the original murder OK?


I did not seek to absolve wrong doers, be they politicians, or hate groups, of any crimes against African Americans. Instead I sought to point out that as they had done in the past, the government and the North did nothing within their power to insure the liberties of those they supposedly fought to free. If they had been so gungho to abolish slavery, it seems they would have been willing to insure the well being of those people by educating them, setting them up with homesteads, and enforcing their rights.

I agree that the actions of many Southern politicians and people up to & during the Civil Rights Movement were reprehensible, but again, you can not judge an entire society by the actions of a decided majority of it poplulation. Were all Germans bad because Hitler and the Nazis did what they did in WWII? No, and anyone who said they were would be laughed down as a fool.

Quote:

Certainly you should be proud of your heritage, but If I were you, I would be actively distancing myself from a war that was started by rich men who callously took advantage of the patriotism of your forebears and sent them to die for an economic system they got little benefit from. I'm Italian, Irish, German, Albanian And Welsh, but I'm not going to go around making excuses for the behavior of Mafiosi, The IRA, Nazis, Albanian bandits, and Catherine Zeta-Jones's dubious choices in the marriage department. The majority you mention, among them your ancestors, didn't start the war, they just fought it (a reason to be proud), so why they fought is irrelevent to what it was about, except in terms of why those individual soldiers chose to fight - as opposed the larger political and economic reasons for the war, which is what I've been talking about. The minority of slave owners are the ones who ran the state governments (which is why for instance the non-slaveholding Virginia upcountry, who didn't want the war, seceded from the state and became West Virginia). South Carolina, whose population was over 50% slave, seceded first and fired on Fort Sumter. If you read the documents in which the Southern states stated their intention to secede, you will see that they list the protection of slavery as the reason (among others). Rich man's war, poor man's fight, as usual. Show some real respect for your ancestors and, at least symbolically, tell the plantation owners to go to hell and leave the ordinary people out of their fight.


I do not seek to make excuses for anyone, only present another side of the arguement, not the very one sided and less than completely factual history taught in classrooms today.

I am very proud of my heritage and see no need to "distance" myself from the War, the South, or its true cause.

I agree with you that it was men in power and politicians, on both sides, that started this war and sent young men on both sides to die fighting to insure their own agendas were kept. There was as much fault and manipulation in Washington DC as there was in Richmond for the conflict, and that is a fact.

I would gladly tell rich men to go to hell and leave the common man alone, but unfortunately the powerful and politicians wrap their true motives in flags and patriotism to convince those with no vested interest to fight for their cause.






"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


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

Monday, January 5, 2004 10:52 AM

TALLGRRL


well...i'm certainly confused all of this.
the show was canceled after airing 11 shows.
what was there to hate so much?
issues that the show didn't run long enough to address?
sheesh...
ya can't make everyone happy. especially in 11 episodes.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."

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

Tuesday, January 6, 2004 10:31 AM

WZ


Quote:

browncoat posted:
Lincoln is quoted in many debates and in personal writings as not truly caring if African Americans were ever freed, so long as the Union was preserved. In a 1858 debate, Lincoln said he felt the whites should always maintain a dominate role to the black man, and that he did not abdicate their voting or holding any office.



I think you mean "advocate."

In the same debate he also said that slavery was a moral wrong which should be abolished. It should also be noted that his views about the equality of black and white people evolved considerably during the war.

His position of placing the Union above the abolition of slavery (abolition being something he always advocated) had more to do with what he thought were his moral and legal responsibilities as president, as well as what the constitution would allow him to do, than it did with his personal convictions. As president he had to preserve the Union (or so he felt), however as president he was also protector of the constitution, which itself protected slavery. The fact that he worked very hard to find ways to end slavery despite it's being protected (and despite the majority in the North who either opposed this or didn't care) shows what his true feelings were.

Quote:

I don't agree with your belief that "many" heads of households aspired to slave ownership. From records and receipts on display in the Museum of the Confederacy here in Richmond, VA, slaves sold at public auction for far more than any household could hope to amass in several years. I have personally seen receipts showing a total for one slave from $2500.00 to $4000.00. I am not sure what that would equate to in today's economy, but I know it was a great deal of money in the 1860's and far more than I daresay that 90% of the Southern population could spare for labor.


From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Aspire - To have great ambition, desire.

Your argument that southern heads of households did not aspire to own slaves because they couldn't afford it is ridiculous. What else do people aspire to than things that are presently out of their reach? If you have something, or can get it easily, there is no need to aspire to it. In any society the poorer elements will aspire to have what the rich have, whether it means cars, big TV's, or slaves. It would contrary to human nature if some non-slaveholding whites in the antebellum south did not aspire to own slaves.

Quote:

Again I have to disagree with you. I respect your opinion, and understand where you are coming from, but I think it is a matter of perception and your interpretation of history.

Louis Farrakhan himself said it best when he said that African Americans spent more years in chains beneath the flag of the United States than they ever did under the Confederate flag. The only difference is that the Union used slavery as their rallying point, and freed the slaves. How different would it have been if the Confederacy won, and freed the slaves, seeing it as an immoral institution that could no longer exist? Would they then revere the stars and bars and damn the flag of the U.S.? Food for thought, no?



Why would the Confederacy free the slaves if they won the war? The only time the Confederacy considered doing so was as a desperate, last-ditch war measure when they were running out of troops - and then they only considered freeing slaves that fought for the Confederacy. They never put this idea into practice, and the General who first suggested it, Patrick Cleburne, was admonished and kept from advancement while his idea was suppressed.

"The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the Revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong".
-Robert Toombs

In other words, if slaves make good soldiers then they would make good citizens and must be equal to whites. If this fact means the end of the revolution, then the revolution is about slavery, and more importantly, whether black and white people are truly equal.

Quote:

I think cash crops were the basis of the Southern economy due to geography, climate, the people that settled there, and the needs of the country at that time. I do not think that the first settlers into the Southern regions of the U.S. thought "Wow! We can settle here, lay on our butts and enslave a race while we cash in". That is ridiculous and nothing more than an assumption.

More likely it was the fact that the temperate southern portion of the country was more suited to crops than the north. The land and climate certainly supported crops, and the North was eager to buy them. If they were not necessary, then why did everyone want them? Why did the North not plant their own tobacco and cotton?



One of the most fertile areas in the country for growing anything is Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, but as it was largely settled by Quakers, Mennonites and the Amish, there was little slavery there. Again you make excuses for the south based on some kind of economic necessity from on high that they were unable to resist. They chose cash crops, they chose slavery, and they chose to continue with it when the British Empire, many of the newly liberated South and Central American nations, and the northern states decided to get rid of it. We're talking about most of South America, most of North America, Australia, India, much of Africa and some of Aisa. Is the American south the only place on Earth that geography and climate dictated the need for cash crops and slavery? Hardly, the south was swimming against the current of 19th century civilization.

Quote:

I do not recall James Hammond ever saying "an agrarian economy, based on Slavery, was the basis of the ideal society". If I am in error, please point me to a text where he is documented as saying that. In his "Cotton is King" speech he does make mention of the profitable markets of cotton and tobacco, and how the south was content to be left alone, but I do not see any comment like the one you mention.


That wasn't an exact quote, but you don't have to go far to find Hammond saying that. Not any further than the very speech you mentioned. His "Mud Sill" theory is contained in the same King Cotton speech, which he gave to the US Senate. In this speech he explains the "Mud Sill" as a metaphor for the foundation that society needs in order to create higher culture - the the slave class, or "mud sill of society" frees whites from hard labor so that they can create this culture.

"In all social systems there must be a class to perform the menial drudgery of life...it constitutes the very mud-sill of society...Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose."
-James Hammond

Quote:

As far as the abolitionist movement, I don't think that New England or the north had a corner on that market. Many in the South felt slavery was wrong and freed slaves and participated in the Underground Railroad. Many leaders of the Confederacy did not own slaves, such as Robert E Lee, JEB Stuart, Johnston, and AP Hill to name a few. To villianize an entire society for the crimes of a few is ludicrous.


There were abolitionists in other places than New England obviously (and the Southern ones were usually against secession, despite that fact that the war apparently had nothing to do with slavery - go figure). New England, and especially Boston, was vilified by Southerners precisely because they were in the forefront of abolitionism which had its roots in the religious traditions of the North - Puritanism, the Quakers, etc. These traditions spread west to places like Ohio and Illinois, but not much to the South.

Technically, a "Yankee" is a New Englander, not just someone from the north, and southern antipathy towards New England may explain their misuse of this term as applying to all Northerners.

Quote:

Please cite your sources for leaders of the South cutting off cotton to England to coerce them into entering the war. I do not recall that anywhere. What I do know of, and can point out in books and receipts in the Museum of the Confederacy, are exchanges of Enfield rifles and medical supplies for cotton and tobacco with England throughout the War.


Do these receipts and books refer trade between the CSA government and Britain - and if so, what part of the war do they date from?

Since all trade would have had to come through the blockade, technically it would all be illegal, and in practical terms, whether you see it as illegal or not, it would probably be done by smugglers, who didn't care about the CSA's official position on the cotton embargo. Also, no matter what the official position was, the south was desperate for supplies, and was unlikely to turn away any guns or medical supplies that happened to turn up on blockade runners simply because they were traded for cotton. In any case, this was an early war measure and the south knew at least by 1862 that they weren't going to get help, either political or military, from England or France, so there may well have been plenty of trade in the later years of the war - which doesn't change the fact that there was an embargo by the south and it did effect the cotton business badly (and that it was a stupid idea born of arrogance and ignorance).

This is not a primary source, but it does contain quotes from some:
"The bill for an embargo on cotton was of course simply an application of of the Confederate doctrine of King Cotton, by judicious squeezes in the British windpipe, could compel foreign assistance. "We hold the aces," rejoiced the Charleston Mercury, "and we shall bankrupt every cotton factory in Britain and France if those nations do not acknowledge our independence." Other newspapers advised the planters to keep the cotton on their plantations, thus it could neither fall into Union hands nor relieve that desperate European stringency...British consuls in the South reported to the foreign office that planters and government alike were determined to carry through a plan of economic coercion."
-Alan Nevins, The War For Union page 100

"What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her, save the South."
-Selections from the Letters and Speeches of the Hon. James H. Hammond of South Carolina, p 316-317

"Is some way or other [the blockade] will be raised, or there will be revolution in Europe...Our cotton is...the tremendous lever by which we can work our destiny."
-Vice President Alexander Stephens, quoted in Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson.

Quote:

If that is the only State Rights infringed upon by the Union in the North, they were better off than the South. Funny that when New England or other Northern states profitted from slave trafficing or the fruits of their labors that they did not complain very loudly. If it was such an issue, why not boycott Southern goods? If it was goods gained by the labor of slaves, it seems the "morally upright" North would have refused to feed the South their money. Guess morals only extend as far as they don't outweigh your wants.


When were the south's rights ever violated by the Federal govt. during the antebellum period? They got everything they wanted except when Lincoln was (fairly) elected and they petulently went to war over that - because they thought he was an abolitionist.

No the northern states did not "complain loudly" about slavery, they just outlawed it, despite the profits to be had from it.

Wouldn't boycotting southern goods be another example of damnable Yankees poking their noses in the south's business and trying to change their precious society? You can't have your cake and eat it too. When the North did anything end slavery, according to you they are hypocrites, and when they did nothing they are also hypocrites. I notice as well that, according to you the South did not want slavery and was on the verge of getting rid of it. If all this is true, why was the south (with, I think, the exception of Brazil) the last place in the western world to get rid of slavery and the only place to be forced to do so by war?

Since you like things both ways, if the South was so outraged by the North's supposed constant infringement of their rights, why didn't they boycott Northern goods? Because they believed in an agrarian society based on slavery as the ideal one - see James Hammond. If they stopped buying industrial goods from the North, they would have to make them themselves, but they preferred to remain dependent on Northern goods (and Western wheat). Despite the fact that Confederates and Confederate apologists like to cast themselves as the spiritual descendents of the Founding Fathers, this is completely in opposition to one of the main reasons the US fought the revolution - in order to stop being a supplier of raw materials to Europe and to create homegrown industry. As in south and Central America, the revolution in the American south was betrayed by those who wanted to maintain their hegemony over the agricultural businesses that supplied industrial society. The Civil War was all about Southern leaders attempting to maintain their economic and societal hegemony over working-class blacks and whites, not states rights, or anyone's rights other than the slave power. Therefore I agree with you on one point:

Quote:

Guess morals only extend as far as they don't outweigh your wants.


Firefly fans rejoice - for the Year of the Jubilee has come! This will be my last post (probably). Though I was invited to post here, it is pretty obnoxious to keep coming back and talking about how much I hated your show (or rather not talking about it all, since few of these posts actually mention Firefly anymore).

-Willie Zaza

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

Tuesday, January 6, 2004 11:05 AM

TALLGRRL


"...it is pretty obnoxious to keep coming back and talking about how much I hated your show..."

No shite, Sherlock.
Jeez! I'm sure glad I have more things to do in life than post on the fanboards of shows I hate.
And there are quite a few seeing that the state of broadcast TV is quite dodgy at best.





Take me, sir. Take me hard."

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

Tuesday, January 6, 2004 11:14 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


WZ wrote:

Quote:

I think you mean "advocate."


Thanks so much for pointing that out. I know the difference & meant to type advocate. Not sure why it came out as abdicate.

Quote:

In the same debate he also said that slavery was a moral wrong which should be abolished. It should also be noted that his views about the equality of black and white people evolved considerably during the war.


Are there sources to cite this change of views. Everything I have read shows he backed abolishing slavery, but he was perfectly content to leave all slaves in chains if it brought the South back into the Union, he said so several times, up to and during the War.

I see no evidence of his opinion changing to think of blacks as anything more than inferior to whites. I have even seen quotes where he proposed sending blacks back to Africa as a "colony" because they would be "more comfortable" in their "native land", never mind that slaves by that point had been born here and had never seen Africa.

Quote:

His position of placing the Union above the abolition of slavery (abolition being something he always advocated) had more to do with what he thought were his moral and legal responsibilities as president, as well as what the constitution would allow him to do, than it did with his personal convictions. As president he had to preserve the Union (or so he felt), however as president he was also protector of the constitution, which itself protected slavery. The fact that he worked very hard to find ways to end slavery despite it's being protected (and despite the majority in the North who either opposed this or didn't care) shows what his true feelings were.



Odd that he could not free slaves still held in the North and in states & territories controlled by the Union. The Emancipation Proclomation did not free a single slave, save those in the Confederacy, which the Union did not control. It was nothing more than justification on paper, and specifically left in bondage slaves in border states and areas controlled by the Union. Why were they not freed if Lincoln's goal was abolishing slavery? He could have easily proposed a bill to abolish slavery in the Union. No doubt it would have carried.

Quote:

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Aspire - To have great ambition, desire.

Your argument that southern heads of households did not aspire to own slaves because they couldn't afford it is ridiculous. What else do people aspire to than things that are presently out of their reach? If you have something, or can get it easily, there is no need to aspire to it. In any society the poorer elements will aspire to have what the rich have, whether it means cars, big TV's, or slaves. It would contrary to human nature if some non-slaveholding whites in the antebellum south did not aspire to own slaves.



My arguement is ridiculous? LOL! No more so than your assumption that every Southern head of household wanted slaves.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Assumption: : an assuming that something is true b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

Assuming is exactly what you are doing when you assume that everyone in the South wanted slaves.

Quote:

Why would the Confederacy free the slaves if they won the war? The only time the Confederacy considered doing so was as a desperate, last-ditch war measure when they were running out of troops - and then they only considered freeing slaves that fought for the Confederacy. They never put this idea into practice, and the General who first suggested it, Patrick Cleburne, was admonished and kept from advancement while his idea was suppressed.

"The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the Revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong".
-Robert Toombs

In other words, if slaves make good soldiers then they would make good citizens and must be equal to whites. If this fact means the end of the revolution, then the revolution is about slavery, and more importantly, whether black and white people are truly equal.



I will research to verify that Gen. Cleburne was the first to propose that slaves who took up arms would be freed. I have seen letters from Lee & Johnston where they proposed it, though I am not certain who first proposed it. Neither Lee nor Johnston received the censure you suggest in Cleburne's case.

I think you read far too much into Robert Toombs quote. He is one man, and you can judge an entire society off of the quote of one man. You definitely can not extrapolate that his comment legitimizes the claim that the entire conflict was over slavery. That is a stretch based on one man's views. If that could be done, than I can site countless letters and speeches where many Southerners are claiming the War is over the Independence of the South from the Union.

Quote:

One of the most fertile areas in the country for growing anything is Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, but as it was largely settled by Quakers, Mennonites and the Amish, there was little slavery there. Again you make excuses for the south based on some kind of economic necessity from on high that they were unable to resist. They chose cash crops, they chose slavery, and they chose to continue with it when the British Empire, many of the newly liberated South and Central American nations, and the northern states decided to get rid of it. We're talking about most of South America, most of North America, Australia, India, much of Africa and some of Aisa. Is the American south the only place on Earth that geography and climate dictated the need for cash crops and slavery? Hardly, the south was swimming against the current of 19th century civilization.


The problem here is I am not making excuses as you claim I am. What I am trying to do is say that the North & South were two different people, as cited by many scholars who traveled both regions. Separated by geography, ways of life, and many other points.

Slavery was wrong, yes. Slavery was an institution that had long outlived its time. We all agree on that point. My point is that the War was not some selfless, holy crusade by the morally right North. It was about money and power. Period.

Quote:

Do these receipts and books refer to legal trade between the CSA and the UK? Since all trade would have had to come through the blockade, technically it would all be illegal, and in practical terms, whether you see it as illegal or not, it would probably be done by smugglers, who probably didn't care about the CSA's official position on the cotton embargo. Also, no matter what the official position was, the south was desperate for supplies, and was unlikely to turn away any guns or medical supplies that happened to turn up on blockade runners. In any case, this was an early war measure and the south knew at least by 1862 that they weren't going to get help, either political or military, from England or France, so there may well have been plenty of trade in the later years of the war - which doesn't change the fact that there was an embargo by the south and it did effect the cotton business badly (and that it was a stupid idea born of arrogance and ignorance).

This is not a primary source, but it does contain quotes from some:
"The bill for an embargo on cotton was of course simply an application of of the Confederate doctrine of King Cotton, by judicious squeezes in the British windpipe, could compel foreign assistance. "We hold the aces," rejoiced the Charleston Mercury, "and we shall bankrupt every cotton factory in Britain and France if those nations do not acknowledge our independence." Other newspapers advised the planters to keep the cotton on their plantations, thus it could neither fall into Union hands nor relieve that desperate European stringency...British consuls in the South reported to the foreign office that planters and government alike were determined to carry through a plan of economic coercion."
-Alan Nevins, The War For Union page 100

"What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her, save the South."
-Selections from the Letters and Speeches of the Hon. James H. Hammond of South Carolina, p 316-317

"Is some way or other [the blockade] will be raised, or there will be revolution in Europe...Our cotton is...the tremendous lever by which we can work our destiny."
-Vice President Alexander Stephens, quoted in Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson.



I do not see how all of the trade could be illegal. That would mean that a great number of guns was moving out of the UK, right under the noses of the gov't, the port authorities, and the greatest navy in the world at the time.

I have seen the exchanges listed as legitimate trade between the South & the UK. I will verify the sources and see if there is documentation to support its legitimacy.

Thank you for the quotes. I will look into them.

I do not doubt that the South used cotton as a lever in diplomacy. Every nation on this planet has used one thing or another to further their own agenda. The U.S. is no different.

Quote:

Wouldn't boycotting southern goods be another example of damnable Yankees poking their noses in the south's business and trying to change their precious society? When the North did anything end slavery, according to you they are hypocrites, and when they did nothing they are also hypocrites. I notice as well that, according to you the South did not want slavery and was on the verge of getting rid of it. If all this is true, why was the south the last place in the western world (with I think, the exception of Brazil) the last place to get rid of slavery and the only place to be forced to do so by war?

If the south was so outraged by the North's supposed constant infringement of their rights, why didn't they boycott Northern goods? Because they believed in an agrarian society based on slavery as the ideal one - see James Hammond. If they stopped buying industrial goods from the North, they would have to make them themselves, but they preferred to remain dependent on Northern goods (and Western wheat). Despite the fact that Confederates and Confederate apologists like to cast themselves as the spiritual descendents of the Founding Fathers, this is completely in opposition to one of the main reasons the US fought the revolution - in order to stop being a supplier of raw materials to Europe. As in south and Central America, the revolution in the American south was betrayed by those who wanted to maintain their hegemony over the agricultural businesses that supplied industrial society. The Civil War was all about Southern leaders attempting to maintain, along with serfdom in Russia, one of the West's last vestiges of a medievel, feudal society based entirely on class and a working class completely without freedom.



Boycotting might be a thumbing of the nose to the South, but it is a far more preferable action to armed invasion. Don't you agree? Personally if the North were not so eager for Southern goods, and boycotted them, the South would have been free to ship them to Europe. That is of course if the federal gov't lifted its unnecessarily high tariffs on the export of cotton.

My guess is that the South did not boycott Northern goods, because like the North, they became dependant on the other entity to provide that which they did not at the time produce themselves. I have no doubt that cost (imagine that, money) entered into the equation for both parties in their continued dependance on one another's goods.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


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

Wednesday, January 7, 2004 2:02 AM

DRAKON


"despite that fact that the war apparently had nothing to do with slavery"

I came across this when I was involved in this same debate last year. I did not want to make too much a deal about it, because even if my opponent was right on this point of fact, I felt the substance of his argument was wrong, and could be dealt with that way. Unfortunately, since then I found the Declaration of Secession of most of the Confederate states. One site that has some of them is here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

South Carolina is complaining because other states in the Union are not living up to their Article 4 (NOT Amendment 4) obligations. It is South Carolina's first complaint after wading through the boilerplate history.

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

In short, slaves were escaping to the North, and Northerners were not sending them back. The state governments appeared to be in collusion, and the federal government was either unable, or unwilling to stop the escaping slaves, nor force the return of any escaped slaves from the North.

The war was about slavery. That is why South Carolina, and the southern states seceeded from the Union. That is the first reason South Carolina gives for leaving the Union. Because the other states were supporting escaping slaves. The Confederacy's own declarations declare this point.


"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 6:30 AM

RKLENSETH


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:
One of the Civil War experts from FFF could maybe contact the guy, or maybe it's best to ignore him.

www.ratsalad.com - It's right on the home page, and has been since July:
Help prevent Firefly: The Motion Picture

Dear God in Heaven!




I am an American Civil War buff but it would seem that the website is no longer up. So I can't drop him a line on how stupid he is.

From what I read though, he sounds like an idiot who was taking his anger out on something that he thought couldn't bit back.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 6:36 AM

RKLENSETH


By the way, the Civil War itself wasn't fought over slavery. That wasn't until later. It was mainly because that the South believed that the Federal Government was trampling their state's rights, one of them being the right to own slaves but there were many others as well, and the war was originally fought over the legality of the South seceding. The North said they couldn't legally secede and the South said they could and then the South fired on Fort Sumter after Lincoln said he would not surrender the fort thus beginning the Civil War. It wasn't until 1863 that the war really called in slavery when Lincoln issued the Emacipation Proclamation but remember that only freed states in rebellion. Slaves in the border states or neutral states did not have to give up slavery until after the end of the Civil War. Most Federal soldiers fought the war for the Union and not the freeing of slaves.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 7:00 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


No sense trying to make sense Rklenseth, people will believe what they want, and what they read in history books, and there is no convincing them otherwise.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


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

Monday, January 26, 2004 7:45 AM

EBONEZER


You know what's really cool about Firefly? All of it's fans are in a higher intelegence bracket then the majority of TV watchers, like this derganged guy.

First off, if he doesn't want to go spend $7 to go see the movie, then he doesn't have to. Were not forcing him. So shut up about it.

Secondly, the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. The south origonaly seperated from the union because of high trading tarrifs (taxes) amoung other things. It was only when the civil war was in full force that Linclon signed the eminipation proclimation, which essentialy did nothing because at this time the south was a seperate country. It wasn't untill the war was over, and the south re-joined the union that this took effet.

He needs to go back to 8th grade history and get his facts straigt.

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 8:25 AM

DORAN



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

Monday, January 26, 2004 8:26 AM

DORAN


What a kook! It's so obvious that Firefly's war of secession has only cursory resemblances to the civil war. The war in Firefly was about economic forces, specifically the frontier getting tired of having none. Slavery wasn't even an issue in the conflict. Still, if slavery had been an issue it would be more likely the Alliance that seemed to support slavery. Certainly Mal, a browncoat, is firmly against the practice.

I find that most people who profess to "hate" Firefly never really got past the "aahww don't replace Dark Angel" feeling. They claim they saw many episodes and yet fail to accurately recount a single one without getting it all wrong.

My feeling is that like most race baters in this county, this guy has an agenda which has more to do with whose in public office than whether there is any real danger of real racial discrimination.

If this guy can't tell the difference between Firefly and the civil war I say it's probably best to ignore him.

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 1:50 PM

THEKINGOFCHAOS


ok, the thing that makes me laugh is in all the searches of websites. This is the only bad review, I have ever seen of firefly. I think that speaks more than any other point can.

Next is the fact that he nvr seems to address the fact that it's loosely based on the civil war. The whole "rape" thing is positively hilarious. Kaylee overcomes this through rivers strength. if you listen to the commentary thats a summarization of how joss described it.

o second posst bye the way

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 6:09 PM

RKLENSETH


I have seen a few bad reviews of Firefly but most of them are outdated and go back to when the show was still airing.

There are a few bad reviews on Amazon.com but very few.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 7:20 PM

BROOKIE


To the foolish and crazy man who wrote the article:


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

Monday, January 26, 2004 7:20 PM

BROOKIE


To the foolish and crazy man who wrote the article:



Yes, i posted it twice because you honestly deserve double the

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 8:15 PM

NUR


Quote:

Originally posted by stillshiny:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
As long as we're considering supernatural influence on the Sept. 11th attacks, it seems there's far more evidence to indicate Allah was the actual culprit. Just a thought.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith



very well said,

though there are many, many godless and inhuman acts carried out in the name of "god"s" that have no basis in their teachings only the overzealous passions of extremists.

but sadly there are such violent hate-filled teachings as well.

I know it's a drift from this thread in a thread, but it actually brings us back to the SCi-Fi of Firefly.I wonder if we will learn more of the "Philosophy" of Reavers.

MAL
Reavers might take issue with that philosophy. If they had a philosophy.

Mal: “See how I'm not punching him? I think I've grown!”




"but sadly there are such violent hate-filled teachings as well."

I suggest reading the Qur'an (Koran) or even just an introductory book on Islam then deeply reconsidering that statement.


O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.

Qur'an [26:83]

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 8:45 PM

NUR


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
As long as we're considering supernatural influence on the Sept. 11th attacks, it seems there's far more evidence to indicate Allah was the actual culprit. Just a thought.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith



SergeantX,

Better late than never but here it does. I am struck dumb by the audacity of your statement. It is the equivallent of saying that Jesus was responsible for the Holocost, which is the farthest thing from the truth. I find your comment both ignorent and insulting both as a Muslim and as a human being. The acts of extemits (few or many) are not the acts of a religion or its god (who, by the way, is the same god that Christians and Jews believe in, "Allah" is just the word for god in Arabic) and it is deeply saddening to see a post like yours.

Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake

O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 9:08 PM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Nur:

SergeantX,
I am struck dumb by the audacity of your statement. It is the equivallent of saying that Jesus was responsible for the Holocost, which is the farthest thing from the truth. I find your comment both ignorent and insulting both as a Muslim and as a human being. The acts of extemits (few or many) are not the acts of a religion or its god (who, by the way, is the same god that Christians and Jews believe in, "Allah" is just the word for god in Arabic) and it is deeply saddening to see a post like yours.

Relax, you have completely misunderstood Sarge. He is assuming that we all realize that blaming Allah for 911 is completely ridiculous.

You might have a right to play the "poor me" card but Sarge doesn't deserve the brunt of your frustration, someone else does.



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

Monday, January 26, 2004 9:30 PM

NUR


Quote:


Hey Bub,
Relax, you have completely misunderstood Sarge. He is assuming that we all realize that blaming Allah for 911 is completely ridiculous.

You might have a right to play the "poor me" card but Sarge doesn't deserve the brunt of your frustration, someone else does.




SargeX and Succatash,

Well not being a mind reader mistakes can be made. Considering the fact that its dangerous to assume that anyone is going to understand exactly what he meant I'm woman enough to appologize. I have to say though that your "poor me" comment was a bit of a stretch, I don't recall feeling sorry for myself at all while writing that. Respect though, must be given for you finding out that I'm from Canada then cleverly speaking to me in the X-Men dialect of Canadian English.

Cheers Bub,
Nur

Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake

O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 9:53 PM

NUR


You took out the 'bub', whats up with that?

Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake

O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 10:59 PM

REDKOMMIE


Okay, I haven't fully read the article, still reading it. Plus there being over hundred posts here, I don't want to sit on my ass and read them all, but I would like to add my two cents on what I read.

First off, Yes this guy is free to state his opinion, thats the beauty of America.

Second off, I am a feely moderate christian, and I have my views and morals so as presented to me by the church. I however know that you can't make everyone see eye to eye. Where I stand against abortion, another won't, but that is their choice and I respect that.

Anyways on to my few points, and please remember I did say I didn't read all of his points... I will have to force myself to read the rest later (he can have his opinion and I can respect him for it, I just don't have to respect the opinion :P ).



Now I could be wrong, but I take it one of the major arguments is that slavery was the major reason to the civil war? It was a key issue, but never the main reason. The South, with its fewer 'voting' population (even with the ... what was it 3/5's act about only 3 out of every 5 slaves would be counted in a vote???) felt it would not be able to have a fair hearing or allowed to have its own indepenence from the northern states. They felt that the North was domaiting the scene, and in many ways it was.

Plus, we never did hear if the slaves in Firefly were black, white, chinese, or whatever. They could just be a lower 'caste' as it seems to be almost in effect in firefly. The lowest of the low. There might not be a REAL caste system in effect, but that doesn't mean that people won't act like there isn't one.

In firefly, the reason the independents wanted to be INDEPENDENT was that their lifes were being constircted and held back by the Alliance (The Americans and the Chinese who run things :P). They weren't allowed to celebrate their own holidays or have their own governments. They did have their freedoms and soveinty as long as they weren't big enough to exoplit. Once that changed, once they had enough people, a industry to support themselves did the Alliance finally move in.

It was quoted as being said, that settlers were only given enough to live on, maybe a few cattle but that was it. In the shortess way I can see this, its all about expansion. In message we find out that Tracey's family was FORCED to live on their world.

In almost every example I have read of or know of, one of the main definition of "Empire" is expansion.. to expand outward, even if it isn't though conquest or settling. There were worlds that could be exploited, people that needed to dispose of and a way to use them at the SAME time. Send them away, give them only what they needed to surive, and come back to them in say 20... 30 years and tell them they are part of this great alliance, and that they would then now work for them. It would be cheap, easy, and very cost-effective.


In all my years of watching Sci-fi shows, this one has really captured my heart. Oh, other sci-fi films and shows (ie. star wars, star terk, babylon 5, farscape, and others) have held my interest, but Firefly really captured how I see the future. It isn't pretty.

It makes sense to me that America (if we don't fuck ourselves someway, or someone doesn't help us do it) and China would be the dominate players in the future. America in the fact that, for better or worse, we are the most powerful country/nation in the world. China has most of the world's population, and I don't think anything would really ever change that (China and the world's larget's population... America I think might fall some day... not any time soon, but some day :P). The fact that they would realize this and say "Hey, instead of killing each other, lets rule togther!" makes complete sense to me.

It would take YEARS just to build a Infomation Age on a world from the ground up. The logicists involed to transfer the needed martieral and other supplies would most likely not be very cost effective. Only the most needed, from vitiams to medicine to the most simple of tools (power tools would only last as long as there was a power source) would be sent. Some prefab buildings and there you go. A very nicely settled world. Cost-effective and very logical. Yes many would die, but then again they would have most likely died if they stayed where they were. Out there is a new chance. here, they just clog the system. And I know that sounds harsh, but when you are thinking in terms of the Whole... you have to think harsh.

I have also come to love the way the crew interacts. How Mal and Inara, two peopel from two very different worlds can't just say they love each other. How they keep hurting each other time after time again. And if you say they are too dense to see it, then I am too dense, cause the same thing happen to me (not so much like them, but in the regards that I liked her, she liked me, but not one of us could say it, and we kept hurting each other).

The way Book seems to be more or less a reborn christian. It seems to me that he was not always a sherpard. He is always struggly with how the Good Book says it, and how the real world works.

The way Simon is always trying to be the gentleman, the tough one, but it doesn't always work out.

How Zoe and Wash have their ups and downs in their marriage, but try to remain faithful (and they do! If only some marriages I knew of could be like this.).

And everything else. The conspiracy with the BLue Sun Corp, River's psyhic powers, the way people try to live in a world that has lost. That is what draws me to Firefly. It is what keeps me watching it again and again. It is what I want to see in the movie.


Now, Zara is totally in his right to say what he will (almost :P). He doesn't have to see things the same way as I do. He doesn't have to even agree with them. But as long as he respects the fact I am my own person and I respect that he is his own person, I don't think we will have a problem. I don't have a problem with him saying he hates the show. I will have one if I ever find him misleading the facts, but as of this point I am still not done reading all of them :P.


Now I go to sleep as I want to try and get up and find a job. I might not ever be like Mal where he has to do some really bad stuff to live..., but I will find it hard and annoying to do some of the jobs that I must.

Keep flying. Keep Dreaming. Keep Hoping.
The Sky is still there come tommorw.

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 11:26 PM

REDKOMMIE


Quote:

Your argument that southern heads of households did not aspire to own slaves because they couldn't afford it is ridiculous. What else do people aspire to than things that are presently out of their reach?


Well.. I know I want to aspire to be a writer... but that doesn't mean I won't ever become one... and the fact that everyone in the South wanted to own a slave!?!?!?!?

From the Gettysburg movie (I can't find a script to copy this from so it is coming from memory.. so it might be off a bit).

Lt. Tom Chamberlain: "I mean no disrespect to you fighting men. But I cannot seem to see why you are fighting this here war."

Rebal Solider: "Why are you fighting it?"

Lt. Tom Chamberlain: "To free the slaves, preserve the Union."

Rebal Solider: "I don't care one way or another about no damn Darkies. I am fighting for my rights (sounds like rats). Thats what we all are fighting for"

Lt. Tom Chamberlain: "Your what?"

Rebal Solider: "My Rights (sounds like rats again). Why can't you live your way and let us live our own. (I know this isn't very exact but you have to bare with me :P). Live and let live I heard a few say."



Not every single person rich or poor wanted to own slaves. Some poor farmer might think it would be great to have one or two to help around the farm. Some rich cotton merchat might be against it for reglious. But Not everyone in the south wanted to own slaves regardless of how it is presented.

And I know this was the movie and not the book (I have read the book a hundred different times and will keep on reading it). But it does bring up a great point.

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:50 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Nur:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
As long as we're considering supernatural influence on the Sept. 11th attacks, it seems there's far more evidence to indicate Allah was the actual culprit. Just a thought.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith



SergeantX,

Better late than never but here it does. I am struck dumb by the audacity of your statement. It is the equivallent of saying that Jesus was responsible for the Holocost, which is the farthest thing from the truth. I find your comment both ignorent and insulting both as a Muslim and as a human being. The acts of extemits (few or many) are not the acts of a religion or its god (who, by the way, is the same god that Christians and Jews believe in, "Allah" is just the word for god in Arabic) and it is deeply saddening to see a post like yours.

Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake

O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]



Your response more or less illustrate's my point, which is that it's not Muhammad, or Jesus, who is responsible for 9/11 but more the notion that we should all be willing to give up rationality and indulge in religious fantasies. The Christians and the Muslims are equally responsible for promoting a world view the eschews personal responsibility in favor of 'faith'.

Or to put it another way, I'm reminded of an incident immediately after 9/11. My boss at work was telling me how happy he was to have George Bush as president, because Bush was a "prayin' man". I was compelled to remind him that the terrorists who smashed into the World Trade Center towers were "prayin' men". Probably prayin' while they did it.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 3:45 AM

ZEKE023


http://www.ratsalad.com/teevee/zaza_fireflyredux.htm

anybody read his reply to this thread? lol.


On a side note - I would just like to say that: "If you really want to help the world - pick the log out of your own eye."

More problems on this earth are caused by theft, greed, and terrible parrenting than are caused by rap music, dungeons and dragons, and Heavy Metal (or media of any type).

It takes a real simpleton to point the scape goat on something that can't fight back. It makes life easy, and it makes none of us have to change.

The columbine shooters listened to hate music which was sung in a language they didn't speak. This was clearly the problem - yanno, moreso then the parrents who didn't notice their kids were using loud power tools to create bombs in their garage. I could list about a thousand examples.

TV shows don't make the world a better or worse place - people do.

The man who wrote the article we're all talking about is a moron.

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:38 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I thought this was a joke site, perhaps something from TheOnion.com? This knuckle head is as far off on his knowledge of History as he is of what a good Sci Fi show consists.

I grew up in Atlanta and know a fair bit on what the War of Northern Agression was about. It was NOT about 'Slavery'. I have no prob w/ anyone who doesn't 'get' Firefly, or even like it, but to go out of their way to keep any potential Firefly productions from being made???

p.s. Anyone who hails from 'northern' Virginia, as this clown states, is clearly a Yankee anyways, so what more needs be said ?


Haters of FIREFLY


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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:09 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


What I find laughable is how this guy changes his tone and story in this latest article. He is obviously one of these self righteous, elitist types who is so utterly convinced of what he knows, that he can not be swayed by anything, no matter how many sources you cite.

I have to admit I am ashamed to acknowledge the fact he is a resident of the Old Dominion. I have lived in Virginia nearly all of my life, and love no place on earth the way I do Virginia. He is right in his statement that most who live in Northern Virginia are from elsewhere, mostly the North. The biggest problem I have w/ Virginia now is a lose of identity. Our government has kowtowed to Northern business and interest for so long that the hospitality and gentile manner of the population has changed since I was younger. It is fast becoming a place in which I no longer wish to raise my children.

His spouting of revisionist history and citing justifications for the War of Northern Aggression is just another in a long list of insults piled on the loser of our fight for independence.

I for one am glad he is gone.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:45 AM

LORDJ


Took me a while to catch up with this thread. Phew! But it's mostly (aside from rather pointless personal attacks) got interesting things to say, especially the exchanges between wz and the-finally-outed-as-a-pro browncoat1.

To return to the show a little: having finally watched the DVD extras, there is a deleted scene regarding the battle of Serenity which places Mal and Zoe a bit differently, and basically makes the point (that is barely implied by the rest of the show) that the experience of the war left them totally alienated from both "causes" of the Independents/Alliance conflict. The effect I think is to place Mal more firmly in browncoat1's camp and to make, for example, the barfight at the beginning of "The Train Job" less about Mal's support of whatever political goals the "Independents" had and more about Mal's rebuffing a personal insult...and also in large part about his general desire to see fatheads taken down a peg. "We will rise again" seems less like the "Lost Cause" tagline and more ironic and playful--since it is said in a context in which Mal et. al. know full well they would never assist in such a venture.

But return to one of my original points: the specific view of freedom (i.e. as freedom from government interference in one's affairs, as detachment from society, etc.; which it is certainly possible that Joss planned to criticize through the River story arc etc.) which Mal articulates is drawn historically from the experiences of Southern whites following the Civil War who saw military Reconstruction as an attempt to boss folks around. Nearly to a person Southern blacks had the opposite view, and believed that their personal freedoms could only be protected by government interference. Of course, what they found out was that the Northerners motivated to protect black rights purely by principle were few in number, that racism didn't respect the Mason-Dixon line (e.g. in four northern states referenda on black voting were held in 1865-66 and in all cases failed by bare majorities), and that concerns of power and profit would hold sway in Reconstruction, as browncoat1 notes. To say North good, South evil is of course too broad a statement to ever be true, but I am quite certain that even the pilloried wz agrees with this.

There seems to be consensus (?) that the Southern political and economic elites who made the decision in state legislatures etc. to secede viewed the issue largely in terms of slavery. The remaining dispute (besides the North good/South bad or North bad/South good one) seems to be around whether it is fair or reasonable to tar all Southerners/Confederate soldiers with the same brush, or whether it is fair or reasonable to deny the historical voices of those who fought for other reasons. And as this issue pertains to the study of history (i.e. what actually motivated people at the time etc.), again I think there is agreement that Confederates' motivations were complex and multivalent.

However, wz's argument had less to do with the actual history (although it quickly wended its way there) than in the persistence of the myth of the Lost Cause, constructed following the end of Reconstruction through early Confederate memorials and coinciding with legalized segregation etc., and the extent to which firefly fed into/deployed this myth. The specific purpose of this "Lost Cause" was to deny entirely the relevance of slavery to the Civil War, to assert that Reconstruction (i.e. the attempt to create a South in which blacks had full civil and political rights) was a horrible mistake, etc. etc. In this way the very elites for whom the Civil War WAS about slavery appropriated the motivations of the legions of southern soldiers to glorify their own decisions, and of course their attempts to write blacks completely out of Southern political life. Now, Northern elites were perfectly happy to go along with this as well--as apparently is John McCain. To be clear, the myth of the Lost Cause performs the same interpretive work which browncoat1 et. al. criticize--taking one element out of a polyvalent landscape to exalt it and deny the others in the service of a political agenda. Whether or not some Confederate generals etc. actually sincerely believed the ideas expressed in the myth is not the point; the point is that these ideas coexisted with other, more pernicious ones, and that the goal (quite unlike the goal of this here thread) of the "Lost Cause" myth is to pointedly misrepresent history.

Given all this I think it is certainly debatable whether ff subscribes to the Lost Cause myth and is deserving of criticism on this accord; but my own view is that a)the iteration of the Lost Cause myth was self-consciously done to attract viewers and b)the ultimate goal would be to critique this myth as a similar construction as "unification." Obviously the only principle Mal adheres to consistently throughout the show so far is to protect and fight for his people. But the only political goals that I saw critiqued on the show were the rather nebulous ones advanced by the Alliance, and there's very little criticism, even implicit, of the politics of the Independents except that which was contained in the deleted scene I mentioned above. That is, had the Battle of Serenity Valley been won by the Independents rather than the Alliance, but with the same results for the troops, my sense now is that Mal's character would have been the same. But I think without that scene one can easily believe that Mal's alienation is a product of the defeat of the Independents (thus feeding into the Lost Cause myth) rather than the experience of battle itself, and his resulting realization that power and profit ultimately win out and the individual soldier is simply a pawn to his commanders. It's also quite possible that Joss et. al. were quite deliberate in avoiding any substantive discussion of exactly what the war was about (i.e. what type of control the Alliance wanted, what specific policies the Independents were resisting) because the entire point of the series is that, those kinds of ideas only affect and aren't affected by ordinary people, and freedom lies in getting free of those struggles. And (phew!) that the ultimate intent was to draw Mal back in to those struggles through River.

PS: To be clear nobody ever argued (and I've reread wz's posts here and at ratsalad) that ff was racist, that Joss was racist, that the show was proslavery, etc. etc. etc. The root of this whole thing was the extent to which ff uses the myth of the Lost Cause, or as wz puts it the veneration of the Confederacy.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL