Quote:

---

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


Now Then:

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


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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by moondog:
"What price freedom?"

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Booksword:

Purple..is slimming.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Goodwolf:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

See how that works?

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Goodwolf:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rallem:

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rallem:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rallem:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rallem:

---

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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

It takes all types.

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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

宁静

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KrelleK:


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

---