*POSSIBLE SERENITY SPOILERS* The politics of the movie by SergeantX

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

*POSSIBLE SERENITY SPOILERS* The politics of the movie

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Saturday, June 25, 2005 18:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2024
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, June 24, 2005 6:44 PM

I was wondering if enough of us here on RWED have seen Serenity to make it worth discussing the politics involved. There are some very interest topics that could come out of it. I'll wait to see if anyone responds before I open up the proverbial worm canister.

If we are careful to use spoiler tags it's even possible others could take part. What do you all think?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:37 AM

SONG

I look forward to such a discussion. I saw the BDM screening this week with my 15yo stepson, and we argued the whole way home about the broader messages of the film. Of the top of my head -- and what follows is spoiler-heavy, so reader beware:

Select to view spoiler:

I see a meaty parallel between Firefly Reavers and real-world terrorists. They are always out there, the stuff of nightmares, existing to terrorize and destroy the innocent. The discovery that the Alliance created them, albeit accidently, could be read as a critique of U.S. foreign policy and its role in both creating the conditions for Islamic extremism and cynically exploiting the War on Terror for domestic political ends.

More than anything, though, the film's portrayal of the lethal, ends-justifies-means tactics of a civization bent on imperialism in the name of perfection, is a critique of the whole philosophy of modernity, not particular to any one country or government.

squirmy 3yo on lap prevents further rambling! just as well, eh?

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

Saturday, June 25, 2005 5:18 AM

SERGEANTX

Wow... that pretty much sums up what I was going to say. I'm wondering how that sits with supporters of our current administration?

EDIT = Song's comments contain only one minor spoiler for those who care to read them.
SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Saturday, June 25, 2005 10:16 AM

OPUS

I'll preface my remarks by saying I've only read the spoilers and haven't seen the film, my remarks are based on the spoilers only.

First you have to accept the premise that the US is responsible for Islamic extremism and that's only feesible if you ignore it's birth about 800 years ago or more recently it's rebirth around 100 years ago.
"Imperialism in the name of perfection"
Imperialism isn't about perfection, it's about gaining territory, increasing the size of your country. The only way that phrase could be applied, as I see it, wouldn't be the modern world, but during the times Europe was taking over huge chunks of the world and lightly veiling it in the hypocracy of civilizing the savages.

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

Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:10 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:

Imperialism isn't about perfection, it's about gaining territory

I think that is a dated definition, US foreign policy ( my feeling anyway ) is more about Imerialism by proxy. When you find a local willing to sell out,and follow whatever orders he is given... and who is willing to do whatever it takes to maintain his position.

The long chain of dictators the US has backed since 1946 I think would support this.

So, to update the definition...

Delete gaining territory

Insert gaining control of territory and resources

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

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

Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:56 PM

OPUS

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:

Imperialism isn't about perfection, it's about gaining territory

I think that is a dated definition, US foreign policy ( my feeling anyway ) is more about Imerialism by proxy. When you find a local willing to sell out,and follow whatever orders he is given... and who is willing to do whatever it takes to maintain his position.

The long chain of dictators the US has backed since 1946 I think would support this.

So, to update the definition...

Delete gaining territory

Insert gaining control of territory and resources

Can't say I agree. By that standard any country that makes a deal with another country, for ANY reason and gains something is guilty of imperialism.
US companies are being enticed to move to Mexico, China and Central America with tax breaks and slave wages. Would that make Honduras guilty of imperialism, Costa Rica, Mexico, China?
If they were able to influence politicians in this country to make rules allowing companies to do these things without repercussions, would that make them guilty of imperialism?
How about OPEC, if they are able to influence US behavior they would be guilty of imperialism.
IMHO, using your definition makes the US just as much a victim as anyone else.
In parts of America, we are definately guilty of it. In other parts, Europeans were here practicing it long before there was a USA.
Regarding the timeframe you mentioned 1946 on...I'll put the US's actions up against those of the USSR any day of the week.

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

Saturday, June 25, 2005 2:11 PM

KNIBBLET

Politics aside, it's sort of good to see that (rich) dateless losers in 500 years will be able to build their own Buffy Bot sex slaves instead of just fantasizing about the cheerleading squad.

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/

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

Saturday, June 25, 2005 2:29 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:

Can't say I agree. By that standard any country that makes a deal with another country, for ANY reason and gains something is guilty of imperialism.
US companies are being enticed to move to Mexico, China and Central America with tax breaks and slave wages. Would that make Honduras guilty of imperialism, Costa Rica, Mexico, China?
If they were able to influence politicians in this country to make rules allowing companies to do these things without repercussions, would that make them guilty of imperialism?
How about OPEC, if they are able to influence US behavior they would be guilty of imperialism.
IMHO, using your definition makes the US just as much a victim as anyone else.
In parts of America, we are definately guilty of it. In other parts, Europeans were here practicing it long before there was a USA.
Regarding the timeframe you mentioned 1946 on...I'll put the US's actions up against those of the USSR any day of the week.

Alright, thats fair. I suppose we have to expand the definition to include means as well as motive. Lets examine a few specific cases and I think you will agree " imperialism by proxy " is a good definition. To be brief I will only use one link per example, if you wish me to expand, let me know.

Iran 1953 : http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/bostonglobe17.htm

US overthrows a democraticly elected government and reinstalls the Shah in order to protect economic interests.

Chile 1973 :
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/chile/allende.htm

US uses CIA to support terrorism within Chile as well as assasination to remove a democraticly elected leader ( killed actually ) and install a military dictatorship run by Augusto Pinocet... this one for both economic and ideological interests.

Guatemala 1954 :
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.1/streeter.html

a list of middle-east errors

http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm

I could go on, but there is a few examples.

Quote:
Regarding the timeframe you mentioned 1946 on...I'll put the US's actions up against those of the USSR any day of the week.

I would say neither has much to be proud of. Mind you each has to take some blame for actions of the other, just as the Cuban missile crisis was a reaction to the deployment of American IRBM's to bases in Turkey. While a large problem for Americans and Soviets alike, imagine if you were Cuban, or Turkish..... caught up in a mess not your own making which could really screw you.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

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

Saturday, June 25, 2005 5:46 PM

OPUS

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Iran 1953 : http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/bostonglobe17.htm

US overthrows a democraticly elected government and reinstalls the Shah in order to protect economic interests.

Here's an excerpt from the article
"Both Helms, in his book ''A Look Over My Shoulder,'' and Kinzer stress that fear of the Soviet Union was running so high at the time that the communist threat to the West loomed larger than seems reasonable in retrospect."

According to that, the reason was cold war fear of the Soviets. It was stratigic not economic. If it had been economic we would have been reaping the profits of Iranian oil, either directly or in low gas prices.

Quote:

Chile 1973 :
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/chile/allende.htm

US uses CIA to support terrorism within Chile as well as assasination to remove a democraticly elected leader ( killed actually ) and install a military dictatorship run by Augusto Pinocet... this one for both economic and ideological interests.

Ideological yes, economic?...conclusion of the article...
"There was ample blame to go around. Groups at all points on the political spectrum helped destroy the democratic order by being too ideological and too intransigent. A minority president facing adamant domestic and foreign opposition was extremely unlikely to be able to uphold democracy and create socialism at the same time."

Quote:

Guatemala 1954 :
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.1/streeter.html]

The communist are the only ones screaming it was done for US financial interests, specifically for one company.

Quote:

a list of middle-east errors

http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm

I could go on, but there is a few examples.

With all due respect the last site could be boiled down to "The US supports Isreal therefore they are evil"

It's not exactly an unbiased site is it?

Quote:

I would say neither has much to be proud of. Mind you each has to take some blame for actions of the other, just as the Cuban missile crisis was a reaction to the deployment of American IRBM's to bases in Turkey. While a large problem for Americans and Soviets alike, imagine if you were Cuban, or Turkish..... caught up in a mess not your own making which could really screw you.

The difference is the US did nothing that even remotely compares to what the USSR did in Eastern Europe, or Castro to the Cubans. The US also didn't reap enough economic benefit to suggest it was ever a major motivating factor.
Understand I'm not cheerleading everything the US has done. But I still wouldn't call it imperialism.
The soviets, through invasion and systemized brutality colonized eastern europe and controled everything they did, that was imperialism.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

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

Saturday, June 25, 2005 6:24 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:

Iran 1953
Here's an excerpt from the article
"Both Helms, in his book ''A Look Over My Shoulder,'' and Kinzer stress that fear of the Soviet Union was running so high at the time that the communist threat to the West loomed larger than seems reasonable in retrospect."

According to that, the reason was cold war fear of the Soviets. It was stratigic not economic. If it had been economic we would have been reaping the profits of Iranian oil, either directly or in low gas prices.

I'll have to add two more links ( sorry, I was refering to stuff I read last week and put the wrong link in... my bad )

http://www.rense.com/general40/roots.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-21.htm

In here you will find that in exchange for bringing the Shah back to power... well I'll just quote

" On the economic front, the Shah denationalized Iran’s oil industry, 60% of which went to American firms. Politically, he was so brutally effective with his US-trained SAVAK secret police that almost all of the democratic and secular opposition was eliminated. When the revolution finally ousted the autocratic Shah in 1979, the new regime was soon dominated by hard-lined Islamists led by Ayatollah Khomeini. "

Now just because the US was scared of the Soviets, does that give them a right to overthrow a democracy, put in a dictator who killed off any opposition ? How about the poor bastard who has to live there ? I would compare this to the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovika.

This is one of the reasons the Americans are hated in this part of the world, to be truthful... I don't blame them a bit.

Quote:

Chile 1973 :
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/chile/allende.htm

Ideological yes, economic?...conclusion of the article...
"There was ample blame to go around. Groups at all points on the political spectrum helped destroy the democratic order by being too ideological and too intransigent. A minority president facing adamant domestic and foreign opposition was extremely unlikely to be able to uphold democracy and create socialism at the same time."

I'm sorry again, some of my statement came from a Kissinger bio I have. Years of Renewal

The ecomonic part came when Allende nationalized Chiles copper mining interests, and began to allow investment from Russia, Cuba, and China which apparently had been illegal before.

And it would appear Colin Powell would agree with me ( even though I have read he was shit on for saying it ) http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/dos022003.html

Quote:

Guatemala 1954 :
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.1/streeter.html]

The communist are the only ones screaming it was done for US financial interests, specifically for one company.

Hell, anyone from that country seems to think that. The only ones who could clear that point up for sure ain't talking... But then why else would they do it ?

I could go on, but there is a few examples.
Quote:

With all due respect the last site could be boiled down to "The US supports Isreal therefore they are evil"

It's not exactly an unbiased site is it?

No but if you use it more as a guide, google say the 1958 US invasion of Lebanon, or the assisted coup in Syria... other sources including US newspapers can be found. I used that one simply for the nice cronological list

Quote:

The difference is the US did nothing that even remotely compares to what the USSR did in Eastern Europe, or Castro to the Cubans. The US also didn't reap enough economic benefit to suggest it was ever a major motivating factor.
Understand I'm not cheerleading everything the US has done. But I still wouldn't call it imperialism.
The soviets, through invasion and systemized brutality colonized eastern europe and controled everything they did, that was imperialism.

I still say the US did exactly the same with the minor difference that for the most part they used locals for the dirty work. Imperialism by proxy, in other words. Check the other Iran links about the US getting %60 of Irans oil to set up the Shah, or check other sources out about the united fruit company and the way US policy was used in the 1950 - 1960 era. I like the local library ( hard for posting though )

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393309649/002-4427009-8
662467?v=glance

Fear of the Soviet threat can't be used as a excuse for inflicting some of what happened on any on these people either. It's kinda like me punching out my German neighbor because the Vietnamese guy across the street freaks me out...

The cops would laugh and laugh

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE