GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Evil Firefly Haters

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 21:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 43108
PAGE 4 of 4

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 9:30 AM

ENDERSPAWN


Wow. Okay lordj, I think you wrapped things up effectively here. I read this thread awhile back but didn't get involved because frankly, it came down to a pissing contest with wz. However ill placed his "witty" article seemed, he had all of us effectively outgunned in terms of both calm and historical accuracy. So I'm glad to see there is a second "neutral, informed" perspective making an appearance because the more grownups we have the better.

Two things though, and I'll try to keep this short. First, I know the deleted scene you speak of; it was part of the original pilot episode (versus the one with the battle at the beginning). Totally right on the impression on that scene, the words were powerful and Ms. Torres did a nice job of hitting them home. But I think a similar, lesser impression can be taken from the current pilot. I think the Mal we see is there, but it isn't nearly as clear.

Second point mostly complicates things by throwing in the philosophy of pop culture and truth and cliches and archetypes into the mix. You say the Lost Cause was misrepresenting history, which is true. The show uses the Lost Cause because I believe you said it was simpler. Now comes the question related to what I think wz might say: Is the Lost Cause in the show a misrepresentation of what happened? If that is the case then the show is close to (if not exactly) what wz says it is (although the extent of his perceived dangers of such a thing seem much less powerful to me). But we have to remember, were talking about the realm of fiction, which misrepresents with simplicities and archetypes not for nefarous (sp?) reasons but for audience related ones.

Of course, if Mal is disillusioned with both sides like you also theorized, then it wouldn't make a difference at all, would it?

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 10:03 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


Thank you for the compliment LordJ.

I would like to say that the "Lost Cause" theory is the moniker given to the misrepresentation of history by historians, both Northern & Southern, that tried to paint things in something other than the truth.

Where exactly the so called "Lost Cause" myth began, and by whom is lost to history. I would compare the "Lost Cause" to the, let's call it the "Righteous Cause" of the North. I find it fascinating that the rally cry of the North & Lincoln and his gov't became "Free the slaves". What is odd is that the war started in 1861, the Emancipation Proclomation was given in 1863, and freed as many slaves as me standing on a street corner giving the same speech. Read the Proclomation. No slaves were freed in any areas under control of the Union, only in the South, which the North could not enforce at the time the speech was given.

I would also like to point out that though slavery was abolished in that "land of the free" north of the Mason-Dixon line, many states of the Union had laws in effect as early as 1846 making it illegal for blacks to live in their states. Illinois, "The Land of Lincoln", was one of the first to pass this legislation. Many states forcibly ejected blacks to keep them outside their borders. So I ask, if they could not go South for fear of being enslaved, and were not wanted in the North, who were willing to fight "to free them", where were they to go? Lincoln had some very interesting ideas, like sending them to Africa, what he called "their native land" regardless of where they were born, to "colonize" on behalf of the U.S.

As for WZ having anyone "outgunned in terms of both calm and historical accuracy" I would have to say that is not clear to me, or I imagine others.

I am hoping the "the more grownups we have the better" was not directed at me, or my opinion, whether or not an individual agrees w/ it. It may not agree w/ the "popular" version of history, but the truth is never popular if it colors the victor in a less than squeaky clean light.

I agree w/ you LordJ on your observation of Mal and his disillusionment of both the Alliance and the Independants. I think he does not care for the bullying presence of the Alliance or their infringing on the rights and freedoms of the planets and people they do not lift a finger to help. I also think he lost connection w/ the Independants when they abandoned him, Zoe, and his unit in Serenity Valley. I would also say that giving up on the cause so many had died for was unforgivable to him. I would think that loss of trust and faith also caused him to lose his faith in god.

The bar scene in "Train Job" is Mal's little act of rebellion against the Alliance.


"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 10:04 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Firefly Must Die
http://www.ratsalad.com/teevee/zaza_fireflymustdie.htm


Dad: What shall we watch tonight? (Removes pipe tobacco from cardigan)

Mom: How about Firefly? (Places bowl of popcorn on coffee table)

Little Bobbie: (Runs in from den) I love science fiction!

Little Susie: (Jumping up and down in excitement) Kaylee's my favorite character!

Dad: I hear she gets raped to death this week!

Mom: Not only that - she dies weeping!

Bobbie and Susie: Yay!!!!!!


I guess this kind of violent pornography is justified when you're a wunderkind who makes "philosophical dramas about the search for meaning."

*sigh*, this article has all the intellectual imaturity of that 'LoTRs Racist Tapestry' article from Indymedia.

Utter CRAP!

You know, you can take any work of art and impose a subtext onto it. Which is what this ... "writer"... has done. However, you must demonstrate your subtext.

To point out one outlandish deconstruction this 'writer' makes - (This guy didn't even come close) The silly gripe he brings up about rape is beyond reactionary and matches some of the vitriolic rants of Rush Limbaugh (on the pills, not vintage Rush). The word rape has been used twice in Firefly. Both times were in different contexts. Now, two disimilar examples do not an arguement make.

You can't accuse a story of a mysoginistic tone with two disconnected strands of dialog.

Well, I could rip this horribly childish first year academia another hole point by point but I just haven't the time. Let me just say that pseudo intellectual twits are a dime a dozen and I'm fully confident that the heart and soul of so wonderful a show as Firefly will overcome such trivialities.

Crips! There are LOTS of horribly unreasonable media brain goo out there. Reality TV itself isn't a target? I could hit that with a two ton hyperbole. Take that Enterprise show - a fascistic, racist free for all (did ya SEE the Fanatical Fundimentalist Suiside Bombers last week?). Why no one is writing articles about this horrorible, horrible show makes me wonder ...

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:17 PM

SUCCATASH


Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
You took out the 'bub', whats up with that?
Hey, I really like your William Blake quote. Yes, I took out the Bub. I say Bub all the time in a casual way, but I didn't want you to take it rudely, plus, I thought you might be female.

The "poor me" comment perhaps came out a bit too harshly, sorry. When I read your post I thought perhaps you have been discriminated against for ethnic or religious reasons. If you have been discriminated against, then you are a victim. A victim should protest and denounce the persecuters. Victims have a right to say "poor me." But Sarge isn't one of the racist persecuters, that's all I was trying to say.

Sarge has fooled me in the past by posting rude things but he is 100% just joking. Although, one time he said something sexual about my mother, and I think he was serious. Well, that's a story for another day.


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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:24 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Getting back to that original "Stop the Firefly Movie Now" site; I ran across it by accident, and am actually glad I did, as a link the author had the odd courtesy to install helped me redicover fireflyfans.net;* I read a good deal of it, though not all, or even most (it soon became clear that the author was too impressed with his own cleverness, and was drowning his few semivalid points in self-stroking repetitive beef by-product).

However, I'm not here to discuss the literary or historical merits (or lack of same) of that site.
What its existence points out is that we browncoats had better be ready to deal with the issues it raises. Without getting into the complexities of the American Civil War (I'll save that for another posting),(or twenty), most people -- most American TV viewers -- prefer to think of history as a series of simple "Good Guys/Bad Guys" scenarios. And no war except possibly Vietnam pushes so many emotional hot buttons as the Civil war in the American zeitgeist.

Watching a few episodes, especially "Shindig", or "Our Mrs. Reynolds", would probably help dismiss the idea that the Independents are Confederates (except on the battlefield.) Assuming, that is, that Mal's attitudes are typical of Independents (and there's no reason not to.)

But we can't assume greater knowledge of Firefly is the perfect answer; the author of that original poison pen piece had a fairly decent familiarity with the program. (One wonders why?)

Point is, what I'm looking for is a one-sentence "High Concept" explanation to throw at the aforementioned "Linear/Binary" mindsets; best I've been able to come up with is "Yeah, it's like the Civil war, except that here the north was the side with the slaves."

Anybody got better?

*Footquote: "Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes." -- Frank Drebbin

RocketJock

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:14 PM

CAPTAINTIGHTPANTS


Quote:
Originally posted by 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]


Just wondering but what is "the X-Men dialect of Canadian English"?

You're gonna come with us...

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:14 PM

CAPTAINTIGHTPANTS


Quote:
Originally posted by 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]


Just wondering but what is "the X-Men dialect of Canadian English"?

You're gonna come with us...

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:26 PM

NUR


Quote:
Originally posted by CaptainTightPants:
Quote:
Originally posted by 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]


Just wondering but what is "the X-Men dialect of Canadian English"?

You're gonna come with us...



Have you ever read the X-Men comics Cap'n?

Wolverine is from Canada and always calls people 'Bub'. Its kind of like his 'Canadian thing'. While other Canadians get stereotyped with beer and hockey, Canadian X-Men get funny words that I don't think I've ever heard anyone in Canada use. Now I do live in the big city, but my parents are from small little towns as are most of my relatives who I visit frequently, maybe people do say it but I've never heard them.

I think he does it in the cartoon too, but I can't for the life of me remember if he ever says it in the movies.

Hope that explains it.

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  

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:46 PM

CAPTAINTIGHTPANTS


Ah!!! I see. I have read a few of the comics years ago. My kids were into them and watched the cartoons too. I never noticed the Canadian language thing in the comics but did realize that Wolverine was from the GWN. I don't remember if he said it in the movies either though. My girls might but they are already in bed.

Where are you from? I have friends up in Toronto, and maybe someday if I'm really good, I may get to move up there. No, really!









You're gonna come with us...

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:46 PM

CAPTAINTIGHTPANTS


Ah!!! I see. I have read a few of the comics years ago. My kids were into them and watched the cartoons too. I never noticed the Canadian language thing in the comics but did realize that Wolverine was from the GWN. I don't remember if he said it in the movies either though. My girls might but they are already in bed.

Where are you from? I have friends up in Toronto, and maybe someday if I'm really good, I may get to move up there. No, really!









You're gonna come with us...

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:57 PM

NUR


Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
You took out the 'bub', whats up with that?
Hey, I really like your William Blake quote. Yes, I took out the Bub. I say Bub all the time in a casual way, but I didn't want you to take it rudely, plus, I thought you might be female.

The "poor me" comment perhaps came out a bit too harshly, sorry. When I read your post I thought perhaps you have been discriminated against for ethnic or religious reasons. If you have been discriminated against, then you are a victim. A victim should protest and denounce the persecuters. Victims have a right to say "poor me." But Sarge isn't one of the racist persecuters, that's all I was trying to say.

Sarge has fooled me in the past by posting rude things but he is 100% just joking. Although, one time he said something sexual about my mother, and I think he was serious. Well, that's a story for another day.



Ahhh. Well I am a girl, but its all good, and no offence was taken. Sarge and I had a little chat, and we (I) understand eachother (what he really ment) much better now (hopefully I'm not being presumptuous in saying that).

Yeah, you gotta love Blake. He's shiny.

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

Every great idea starts out as blasphemy.

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:05 PM

SUCCATASH



Sarge is pretty cool, eh? He's probably my most favorite Browncoat I've met, but don't tell him or he'll give me shit.

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:10 PM

SAINT JAYNE


Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
Wolverine is from Canada and always calls people 'Bub'.

"Bub"? How rude! I thought that was for NY cab drivers.

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:16 PM

NUR


Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

Sarge is pretty cool, eh? He's probably my most favorite Browncoat I've met, but don't tell him or he'll give me shit.


Ahhh, more Canadian. Shiny. Don't worry, my lips=sealed.

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

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:20 PM

NUR


Quote:
Originally posted by Saint Jayne:
Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
Wolverine is from Canada and always calls people 'Bub'.

"Bub"? How rude! I thought that was for NY cab drivers.


Hehe. But remember, we're stereotyping Canada here and all Canadians are a hockey-loving, beer-drinking, kind folk. So it can't possibly be rude, eh?

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

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:42 PM

SUCCATASH



Succatash understands beer, but hockey not so much. Thinks playing it is fun, but watching it and waiting for a fight is unexciting.

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:05 PM

JASONZZZ



I thought Canadians were Hosers, eh?

and they do that curling thing too. Which makes absolutely no sense at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
Quote:
Originally posted by Saint Jayne:
Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
Wolverine is from Canada and always calls people 'Bub'.

"Bub"? How rude! I thought that was for NY cab drivers.


Hehe. But remember, we're stereotyping Canada here and all Canadians are a hockey-loving, beer-drinking, kind folk. So it can't possibly be rude, eh?

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


Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:08 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
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.


There is a large difference between what Bush is praying for, and what the 9-11 hijackers were praying for, and to a large extent, that makes all the difference

The desire to condemn the sentiments of religious folks is a natural reaction to such attacks. The idea that the problem is religion in general, is also natural as well. But ultimately its a very superficial similarity.

Our fundies in this country may be annoying, but they are not out actively killing folks. Even the few who claim to bomb abortion clinics "in the name of God" don't get much support even from other Christians who agree with their goals

I know its considered hip to denigrate religious beliefs as being nothing but superstition. But, I don't think this is either an effective persuasional stratagy, or even a valid point. Religion, like culture, is ultimately and pragmatically a collection of ideas. Ideas have to work their way out in the real world if they are to survive, as bad or false ideas end up getting their adherents killed off.

One thing that has bugged me about 9-11 is not the people who were killed, but all the ones that were not. The towers were expected to contain 50,000 to 100,000 people that day, either working or visiting. Even with 30,000 there at the time of the attack, only 10 percent of that number did not make it. The other 90 percent survived.

Also, the Pentagon was undergoing a refurbiment project to protect the building in case of a major attack. One side had just been completed, and not all of the staff had moved back in. The terrorists had a 1 in 5 chance of hitting this exact side on 9-11. Hmmm...

As a pagan, I recognize that it was Christians who put in the separation of Church and state into the US Constitution. Granted, it was a lesson they learned the hard way, in Europe. But the key point is that most Christians have learned that lesson. And that makes all the difference in the world.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:47 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Point is, what I'm looking for is a one-sentence "High Concept" explanation to throw at the aforementioned "Linear/Binary" mindsets; best I've been able to come up with is "Yeah, it's like the Civil war, except that here the north was the side with the slaves."

Anybody got better?


Umm.. Do we really know the war was a civil one? It may have been an Alliance war of conquest. We really don't know, and the more I think about it, Mal does mention "uniting all the planets under one government to be equally ignored". If they were not united in the first place, then how could the INDEPENDENTS rebel? Wouldn't they have been called Rebels instead by the Alliance?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 5:53 AM

NUR


Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

I thought Canadians were Hosers, eh?

and they do that curling thing too. Which makes absolutely no sense at all.



Curling, yes we do (personally I don't get it, but my mother swears its the greatest winter sport ever). Lacross too. But Hosers, eh? thats just plain unkind. Bob and Doug would be ashamed of you.



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

Long live beavers, and coloured money!

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 6:24 AM

JASONZZZ



Nah, I took my nephews and nieces to "Brother Bear" last month (after they hounded me endlessly about it) and was glad that the brothers were in the movie. Them mooses were just funny as heck...

Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

I thought Canadians were Hosers, eh?

and they do that curling thing too. Which makes absolutely no sense at all.



Curling, yes we do (personally I don't get it, but my mother swears its the greatest winter sport ever). Lacross too. But Hosers, eh? thats just plain unkind. Bob and Doug would be ashamed of you.



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

Long live beavers, and coloured money!


Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:12 AM

ENDERSPAWN


Hey Browncoat1, sorry about my comments. I do remember the thread had some good arguments in it, but from my perspective it felt like they didn't have the oomph I wanted them too. Just an opinion. And the grownups thing was more an acknowledgement to the guys who hopped on here and were basically flaming wz. People can be defensive and it isn't them, just the way they are, but I was a little bit embarrassed. You are exempt, of course.

It looks like the thread is very pleasant but I still see merit in an analysis of the "rules" of the medium the show is presented on. Just two cents.

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:16 PM

ROCKETJOCK




Originally posted by Drakon
Umm.. Do we really know the war was a civil one? It may have been an Alliance war of conquest. We really don't know, and the more I think about it, Mal does mention "uniting all the planets under one government to be equally ignored". If they were not united in the first place, then how could the INDEPENDENTS rebel? Wouldn't they have been called Rebels instead by the Alliance?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"


Good question, actually. I got the Civil War impression from non-canonical sources, I.E. TV Guide's first Firefly article, and from semi-canonical sources, such as Joss's more-than-occasional references to the historical parallels involved. But Drakon's right; nothing in the actual episodes establishes the nature of the conflict as such.

Keep in mind though, that I'm trying to come up with a simple explanation of the show's historical parallel to use on the uninitiated.

"These are simple folk. The common clay of the new land. You know... Morons." -- The Waco Kid

RocketJock

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

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:30 AM

PURPLEBELLY86


When I came across Mr. Zaza's article on Ex Isle forums, I was rather unimpressed with his tone, which struck me as unnecessarily mean-spirited. Also, his opinions on the artistic merit of Firefly seem to me groundless. I didn't watch Firefly because it was good science-fiction (although that helps); I watched Firefly because the characters - Simon, River and Book in particular - were interesting, annoying slang aside. Also, it seemed almost reminiscient of Trigun (one of my favourite TV shows of all time, period). Also, the reason I could be talked into watching the DVD's at all was that I was told it wouldn't be 'Buffy In Space' (and was glad to find that, indeed, it wasn't).

I may be treading some dangerous ground here, but... Though Mr. Zaza reads as both pretentious and contentious in his approach to Firefly's historical references, he does make some valid points. When I watched the show for the first time, I must say that I immediately caught the references to the Civil War and asked a lot of the same questions Mr. Zaza asked. I think that this kind of implicit sympathy for the Confederate cause (even in a fictional scenario), especially where the aspects of institutionalised racism and exploitation go ignored, is reprehensible to say the least. And (my apologies to Mr. RocketJock for what may seem a hardline attitude) but slavery is an evil whose greater I'm hard-pressed to discover, so I must agree with Mr. Zaza in that '[t]he Confederates needed a good spanking and they got it'.

Also, I'm not catching the point in the series or in the movie where it's made clear that slavery was one of the evils of the Alliance (since references to slavery in both 'Shindig' and 'Jaynestown' ostensibly took place on outer worlds where the Alliance still has very little presence).

你们写中文的时候，清写中文写得正确。
同盟万岁！

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

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 7:06 PM

GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN


Now I haven't read all of this thread because I feel the need to put in my 2 cents right now, so here I go.

to everyone who thinks the civil war was about slavery, and only slavery I have a question for which I shall recieve lots of flack and fire but it must be asked


IS YOUR HEAD UP YOUR ASS FOR THE WARMPTH?

I hate having to ask this quesion and will probably be called uncivil for it but I had to, because no matter how far back in time you look you will never find a war that was fought for only one reason, never name a war and there are 10 reasons or more why it was fought. slavery wasn't even the main reason. the MAIN reason was that the north was unfairly taxing them


well who knew I could get so long-winded

it's my insanity that keeps me sane hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

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

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:55 PM

EMMAZULE


Quote:
I'm sure it was also much better than "Tru Calling," though I haven't actually seen that show.


Actually, despite the cliche premise of reliving days to save people from dying (and boy, is that a cliche premise, I'll admit), and the dorky title (which references the main character's name. I think there's even a joke she makes about how dorky her name was, I'm not sure, it's been a while), the execution was remarkably good on "Tru Calling", especially after, of all things, Jason Preiestly joined the cast. I was as shocked as anybody could be at a former 90210 actor actually... you know, being able to ACT, but he provided a very good conflict for the show, as they expanded on the mythos and it became increasingly unclear as to whether Tru's using her power to save people is actually Good, or secretly, perhaps, serving the not-so-Good side, since every moment a person who could have died is alive, there is a ripple affect. It's slowly-but-surely implied that each (Tru and Jack, Jack being Preistley's character) is being manipulated as a weapon in some sort of bigger, perhaps cosmic-level war by forces that humans can perhaps never hope to comprehend... and you have NO IDEA whose side would be "right" or "wrong", if any.

The earliest episodes were OK (aside from the writers being a bit confused as to what character subplots they should intro or kill, for a while there), but the later episodes were the best. Basically, I would recommend most starting with the episodes where Preistly's character came in. Well, that's assuming you can find anybody who still might rent the show, instead of resorting to buying it (though it's been out on DVD for so long, you might very well be able to find a damn good deal on it, who knows). Wonderfalls died sooner and quicker, and it's still selling better than TC. :P I actually found a Wonderfalls boxset in Best Buy a few weeks back, but could not find TC.

The biggest problem with TC was that by the time they had found their sea legs, they were put in opposite CSI (which killed it), then canceled in favor of Point Pleasant (dead), then Fox didn't even show the final episode after PP failed, because it was a Christmas episide and it was spring when they aired the "second season" (read: final 6 of 26 episodes). So there's not much real resolution, though you can see tantalizing hints of where it could have gone, and it would actually have been pretty damn interesting, with a lot of moral ambiguity and increasingly developed characters and, yes, even a surprisingly well-done cat-and-mouse game between Tru and Jack.

But I think I've aided in the resurrection of this thread for long enough. :P Just thought I'd chime in, since somebody mentioned TC, and I always thought that TC was rather underrated, especially considering how bad it COULD have been (heck, I even gave in to the impulse and bought a copy of both seasons' DVD sets, though I still haven't gotten around to watching/rewatching any of them). I do personally like Firefly better (I like the characters better, for the most part, and there's more developed characters period, let alone characters I like), but it was a decent show that would have gotten pretty damn good if it had had a full second season (I read the blog of one of the writers shortly after the thing was canceled... poor things. They had planned out through season 2, episode 8 of TC... only to learn that only 6 episodes had been ordered for the second season). Wonderfalls was another good one, actually, arguably better in turn than TC and... I admit, sometimes, I feel like it's (Wonderfalls, I mean) the funniest damn show I've ever seen. Though I'm most happy with the lesson Tim Minear (exec producer on both Firefly and Wonderfalls) learned from Firefly, which was: Have the first season be completely and utterly able to be self-contained, because you may NEVER get a chance to finish it. He was right on the money, since it got canceled after being put in the Time Slot of Doom as well (why they didn't put it on Wednesday or Tuesday or Monday, I'll never know. It would have done a hell of a lot better there. But oh well, *shrug*).

Anyway, that was a much-too-long way of saying: Yes, it's better than Tru Calling, but TC was probably not as bad as it may have seemed. ;) And... Wonderfalls rocks. That is all.


~Emma

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

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:20 PM

PURPLEBELLY86


Since I'm kind of the only one who mentioned the Civil War in the last half-page or so (this is a rather long thread, I agree) - I'll have to assume that the 'head up your a$$' question was aimed in my general direction.

To which I defy you, Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown, to show me precisely where and when I said that the Civil War was about slavery and only slavery. It was about different ways of life and different ways of thinking. But you are absolutely, one-hundred percent, one-hundred-and-eighty degrees WRONG about the Civil War being primarily fought because, um, how did you put it?... 'the north [sic] was unfairly taxing them'.

There were multiple reasons, tariffs being one of them. But tariffs were only unfair to the landed gentry of the South whose humongous profit margins were being cut into a little too much by the federal government. And tariffs were only an immediate reason.

For example, I could ask why the Roman Empire fell and you could say because the Huns invaded and caused mass migrations among East Germanic tribes who plundered and looted the empire until it collapsed. But I would ask you to look at the larger picture: Rome had grown corrupt and complacent over the past several centuries, oppressing and enslaving minority groups such as the Iceni and the Jews. Popular opinion was not with them. Also, their army was largely composed of Germanic mercenaries who deserted or revolted when the Roman commanders were no longer able to pay them.

So again, with the Civil War, I'm asking you to take a look at the larger picture. You have a country which since its inception was composed of two different types of people: East Midlanders who migrated to New England to be able to practise their own respective forms of Low Church Calvinism (though still wanting to do trade with their mother country) in the North and lesser scions of the nobility and poor families in the north of England who thought they could make better fortunes by farming in the South. (You can flame me all you want for oversimplification here, the fact remains that it's a good heuristic model.)

Slavery became an issue later (though still before the Revolution), but since it wasn't prevalent in the Northern merchant centres and it was prevalent in the Southern agricultural regions, it quickly became a regional issue. Add to this that many of the aforementioned Low Church Calvinists (and their spiritual cousins the Quakers) had ethical qualms slavery that later became widespread in the North, and that makes slavery a pretty damn big sectional issue by the time the Civil War comes around.

If you're ready for a civil chat about history instead of an exchange of childish one-liners, I'm here all week. PurpleBelly86, thank-you-very-much-everyone-no-there-is-no-second-person-plural-in-the-English -language, signing off.

你讲中文的时候，讲中文讲得正确啊。
联盟万岁！

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

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:17 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


The war had very little, if anything, to do with slavery. The slavery aspect of the Civil War was nothing more than a means for public school brainwashing of children to believe that the South is full of racist rednecks and that the Confederate flag, the true symbol of American patriotism, has been reduced, in the mind's eye of the masses, to the status of the Swastika.

The South rebeled against the North for many reasons, but in general it was opposition of all of the meddling the North did. People who win the wars write the history.... that's why we don't read about Southern war heros in school. That's why we vilanize the rebellion in real life but embrace it in Star Wars. People don't take too kindly to a centralized government dictating everything they do in their life. The South knew back then what the North was capable of and though the North didn't have the technological means in those days, America has become very Orwellian with it's technology and law today and delights in meddling with other countries and cultures as well as the personal lives of it's own people. We've become borderline Fasist, and will soon be a Police State.... even sooner if we let teachers carry guns in schools.

The North, New York, Wall Street, all the money... all of it being used to exploit peoples of third world countries and reduce them to slaves in factories and make children who are 8 years old and younger work in sweat shops so we can have our disposable dinnerware and styrofoam cups and cheap clothes and shoes. That's what we do now. Just because it's not happening in your back yard doesn't mean that we still don't have and condone slaverey, even if only on a subconscious level for most of the masses. Only difference now is that it's not black slavery and it's not in your face. Hell even the African Americans benefit today off the slavery of third world countries..... anybody else smell the irnoy? I'm drowing in it. The only reason your clothes are so cheap is because some asian kid is working in conditions akin to our greatgrandfathers slaving away in coal mines made a shirt for you today and got to bring back a quarter to his family for his day's work.

It's truly unfortunate that a wonderful symbol of freedom and old school American patriotism and hard work, the Confederate flag, has become a symbol of racism and hate because of the public school system and the media.

To he who thinks that we're better off with the North having won, you muppets for the Empire, I've lived in the North all my life. I'm a resident of the Chicago Suburbs and I hate Repuglicans and Demoncrats alike. The Repuglicans are really fing everything up now but the Demoncrats were doing pretty well themselves for 8 years before that and I'm not looking forward to their next inevitable 8 years. We are in desperate need of a third party to help balance out the corruption. Think about that before you start calling me a red neck. I just happen to be a freedom loving patriot who doesn't like the way this government is going and wishes that the South had won. At least we'd have a choice to which principals we choose to live by. Blind believers that this is the way.... The propoganda oozes from the pores of the masses who now have a higher concentration of propoganda pumping through their bodies than they do water.

Are you even human anymore, or a mindless yes-bot for Big Brother?

It's really convenient for people to have such clear cut ideals of good and evil or black and white, or in this case... blue and grey. It makes you go to sleep a lot easier at night when you don't have to think about any of the indoctrination you've been shoveled since you were a little kid.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:42 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


Well said 6ixStringJack & Purplebelly86. Both of you make logical, educated points, and it is good to see open debate without the all too often spiraling into name calling that normally happens when the subject of the War Between the States and its causes comes up.

My stand on things has been made quite clear further up in this thread, but I would like to add one observation that in recent years has been proven to be true. When the Confederacy lost their bid for independence, the South was not the only ones to lose. Seems the vision our Founding Fathers had for this country has been lost. Our government is rife with corruption. The states are powerless and the thing that our Fathers warned us about has come to pass: an all powerful central government sits in D.C. Guess we ALL lost the War.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org


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

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:21 AM

PURPLEBELLY86


The Chinese have the perfect response to your little rant here: 这套真是你的放屁。

Lemme see. This little response was full of so much bs that I don't know where to begin. Let's start with the assumption that I am a... um, how did you put it?... 'mindless yes-bot for Big Brother'. How did you come to this astounding conclusion. Pray enlighten the rest of us unworthy mortals on how your exalted mind came to such a pontification.

I am no yes-bot for anyone but myself and my own conscience; I don't respect nationalism or patriotism in the forms people often describe. It's dangerous and it brainwashes people to the suffering of others who happen to have been born outside their own borders. I stand for what I think is right, and if it had been the North that endorsed slavery and the South that brought about emancipation, I would have been fully in favour of the South.

That said, I consider myself fairly well-read in American history, especially religious history, having read Dorrien, Zinn et al. (If you've ever read Zinn, it's pretty easy to imagine that after having read that, it's hard to walk away with any indoctrination at all. It's a history that makes you actually think [gasp].) You can take any kind of spin you want, but you can't deny that slavery, being one of the dividing factors between the South and the North, did take a central role in causing the split that made the Civil War even possible. How else can the first of the schisms in American Protestantism be explained? Or the furore over the Fugitive Slave Act? Or Bloody Kansas, et cetera ad nauseam. Again, I'm not saying that slavery was the only reason, and I'm not even saying that it was the pivotal reason. But to deny its role would be to deny a huge mistake in history. If we forget, we shall be doomed to repeat.

Believe me on this one. Being half-Jewish, you can imagine I have something of a perspective on this issue. Likening the Confederate battle-flag to the swastika may not be the best of analogies, but given the way the black people at my school and in my community act about it, I'd say it's probably fairly apt.

Also, being one of your draconian Northerners, it's difficult not to take offense at your obviously bigoted and ill-educated views. The city that I call my home is fairly metropolitan and diverse in both ancestry and viewpoint, and I've never seen or heard anything about the city or state or national government making undue interference in my daily life. (And yes, I did read about Lee, Jackson and Davis in school.) But I know for a fact that I would be drummed out of most Southern towns and universities within a week, because I'm not enough of a Bush lapdog and I'm too much of an 'egghead' (not my description). I'm sorry, but I don't see anything to justify your veneration or your mistaken nostalgia in a country that based its existence on the systematic exploitation of an entire subset of the population based solely on their parentage.

You're welcome to your own opinion, but I would rather live in a society that values an ethic of tolerance, equality and civility than in a society run by the ultra-right-wing fundamentalists and the agriculture and extraction industries that seem to have a stranglehold on the South. Sorry, but I'll take NYC and Wall Street any day over Lynchburg Town and Woolworth's. Rather people would have my wallet than my neck, or the neck of my (free, black) former roommate.

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

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:48 AM

PURPLEBELLY86


I can see where you're coming from, BrownCoat1. But it seems to me that if you're going to devolve power away from a central government, devolving into a government closer to home, even so might not be such a good idea. Already we're having trouble with the gay marriage issue. Massachusetts accepts gay marriage, New York recognises gay marriages from other countries, whereas other states refuse to recognise any gay marriage, abroad or at home. Euthanasia is another example. Does each state get to determine the practise of its doctors, such that they cannot practise in other states, or might even be arrested for practising? How is that less totalitarian than having a uniform standard for medical care?

If local issues are of concern, I'd say abolish the state system entirely and go by district. Direct democracy by population, or at least as direct as we can get it; none of this electoral college bull. We wouldn't have issues like gerrymandering or the rivalries between inner California and coastal California, or Illinois and, well, Chicago. And people would be free to address issues that directly affect them.

To be honest, 'states' rights' is kind of an artificial issue to me. States are regions based on an antiquated colonial system which we no longer support, and to be perfectly frank, it's holding us back.

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

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:18 AM

KANEMAN


I know there is a huge misconception among northerners as to the reasons behind the civil war. Just ask any school aged child in CT ..Why did we go to war with the south? Because of slavery! What rubbish. And, we were all taught that. It took me 32 years to finally understand that the war was over something far more important than slavery. And that, is a giant 'Shame on you' to our education system. 32 years to learn the truth....Clam chowder!! we had it, they didn't, and we wanted to keep it that way...Well, it's true......

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

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:34 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


Therein lies the problem PurpleBelly; there is no way in the Special Hell that the federal government would ever relinquish any of it's power. Not ever. They have been working since 1861 (earlier in some respects) to steal away what power they have now. They put a lot of years and effort into it and they will never give it up. There is too much power and money involved to ever simply give it back to the people or states.

I don't necessarily agree with you on statehood holding us back. We can clearly see in history that the needs of certain regions and it's people do not always coincide w/ the needs of people from another. To do away with states and divide them into districts might work on a small scale, but would it not just cause even more political infighting and allow for more corruption.

No, the ideas of our Founding Fathers, for a Republic free of the oppression and interference of an all powerful central government are gone. Short of another revolution we will never win them back.

It reminds me of a line from the "Patriot":

"Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Is this not in effect what we have done?

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org


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

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:53 AM

THOLO


Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
Wow, where to start? I guess Zaza has a problem with fact that slavery WAS NOT the main reason for the Civil War, no more than the Holocaust was for WWII.

It seems that everything he doesn't like about the South (or history in general) is connected to Firefly on purpose (instead of his warpped imagination) (For some reason McVeigh the NORTHERNER is tied in with the "evil south)

Lastly, I like how this waste of skin doesn't even KNOW that Fox isn't making the movie.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger



the civil war was fought for states rights, slavery was an issue but not the ONLY issue. just like the browncoats wants independent right for each plant, same with the south, but it was for the states.


Keep Flying!!

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

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:25 PM

PURPLEBELLY86


Hmm. Definitely not that big of a Mel Gibson fan, so I'm afraid the reference is lost on me.

Even so, I'm not sure but some level of centralisation of power is needed for any federation of states to work. We tried the entire Confederation deal well before 1861, and it failed miserably. (Perhaps you know of the Articles of Confederation?) It's one of the reasons we have a Constitution now, and provisions for a federal system of government.

As regards the second point, I think that states might be able to work - but only if we get rid of the electoral college, to ensure that all states are treated equally when electing the president. Why should states with tiny populations, like Wyoming, get votes that count for three times as much as states like California, because of such an unbalanced system?

Also, I would dispute that the federal government in Washington is 'all-powerful'. A number of states, including my own, signed Kyoto-compliant environmental standards into state law without the approval of the federal government, even though the Bush Administration refused. Why does Oregon now allow euthanasia, or Massachusetts gay marriage and Vermont civil unions? All of these are contentious issues on the national stage, but as you can see there is little the federal government has done to take away the states' rights to legislate in these matters. (Though it may end up having to at some point when inter-state disputes over the legality of gay marriage, euthanasia and environmental regulations turn up.)

As far as the 'dream of the Founding Fathers' goes, depends on the Founding Father you look at. It seems that Alexander Hamilton would approve vociferously of the system we have today, where business organisations operate largely without government oversight and even have significant representation on K Street, but I doubt Ben Franklin or John Adams would have agreed with him.

Of one thing I am sure: even though some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, most of them recognised nevertheless that it was an evil that would have to go at some point. Many of them realised the hypocrisy in fighting in the name of freedom a power which granted freedom to all its insular-side subjects, while the rebels themselves owned slaves. But it took the brave actions of people like William Ellery Channing, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass and even John Brown to make people realise that 'some point' was not just 'any point'.

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

Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:58 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


Oh, I am very familiar with the Articles of Confederation.

I believe that the central government, as it was originally laid out was the best plan. They were to negotiate disputes between the states, be responsible for diplomacy with foreign powers, and to organize the military against any outside threat to the country. That should have been the extent of their power.

Now, we have federal income tax, the federal government has spread their political and military reach across the entire globe, and the electoral college. Our government has become more of an empire than what it was originally intended to do.

I agree that several states have passed laws on the death sentence, euthanasia and the gay marriage without interference, but why do you think that is exactly? Is it because the states still have a plethora of rights, or is it because the government in D.C. is too afraid to take a stand on a hot button issue one way or the other? If they leave it to the states to decide, they wash their hands of subject and have plausible deniability to keep them from losing too many votes in the next election.

I agree with you on the electoral college. The system is broken and should be done away with, the sooner the better.

One of my examples of the usurping of power by the federal government is the deployment of Guard troops overseas. The guard are organized and run by their home states and were organized for the protection of that state. Yet the federals call them up, deploy them full time overseas, and deny their use to the state that created them. Prime example is the Louisiana Guard unit that is an engineering unit. When Katrina hit and their home state was devastated, they asked to come home to do their job. The federals would not let them. The state of Louisiana asked for them to be released to do the job they were created for. Still the feds refused. That is wrong. Guard troops are meant for home defense, not furthering the federal agenda overseas.

Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist as I am sure you are familiar with the Federalist Papers, so it is no surprise his vision did not meet that of the other Founders. Limitation of power for the central government was something that all, with the exception of Hamilton, agreed upon. They had seen how power could corrupt and it negative impact upon citizens, and they wished to avoid that for our fledgling country. Too bad those who came after, especially from 1861 on, did not heed those warnings.

I agree that many saw slavery as "evil" and as an institution that could not and should not last forever. Like the Confederate States of America though, the Founding Fathers had no answer for how such an institution could be done away with without the total collapse of the agrarian system of the South. Some of the Southern States, such as Virginia, were taking steps, even before the War to limit or ban the importation of slaves. This was a small step, but the first step nevertheless toward the dismantling of slavery. Given time, and a viable means for replacing the manpower, slavery would have disappeared in the South. A dark spot on our history to be sure, but one shared by nearly every nation on this planet.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org


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

Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:49 PM

PURPLEBELLY86


This may surprise you, but I actually agree with you on many points. The decision concerning the Louisiana National Guard was, of course, wrong on the federal government's part, but I'm not seeing the connection to 'states' rights' there, even though the liberties that the state can take with its own National Guard were being infringed. I see that as the Bush Administration and the Republican Party trying to save face with regards to the Iraq War (or their domestic policy, or both), or trying to avoid a situation where they might lose it. It's something they do all the time more and more, I notice, and it's gotten to the point where I'm not really surprised by it anymore. I guess the Republican philosophy has become 'big government is good government if it's our government'.

Same time, when you have people in the White House and in Congress who are as vociferous as they are on the issues of gay marriage, euthanasia, the death penalty et cetera, I do indeed wonder why the federal government hasn't interfered. (The Republicans in Congress are trying for certain, but they're trying to do it by changing the Constitution now - even though that's one power that is granted explicitly to the states through the ratification process.) Given all the rhetoric in addition to dearth of federal action here, I'd say it's not what Mencius would call a demonstration of 不为 (lack of will) but rather a demonstration of 不能 (lack of ability).

You seem to be forgetting, though, that the slave trade was a horse of a different colour from the practise of slavery itself, back in the day. The importation of slaves was banned in Virginia and some of the other Southern states actually before the Northern ones, but that was pre-Revolution. By the time the Civil War came along, the issue of the slave trade was long since gone. The issue at hand was chattel slavery itself, and had been for nigh on fifty years - the ban on the importation of slaves was no progress toward the dismantling of the institution itself, or at most negligible. It was an issue that hounded Congress like plague (and was so compared) for decades. Many solutions had been explored - Lincoln had actually offered the plantation owners to buy off all the slaves at their market price, and he was refused.

But it was an age of prophecy. Like the time of Moses and like the time of Martin Luther King, Jr., it was a time of iniquity and a time of identity crisis. It was a time when you had these tremendous, as Bob Hill, dean of Boston University's Marsh Chapel put it, 'wake-up calls' to the nation. At that time, slavery was not an issue that would, or even could, be put off any longer, that John Brown proved with his (in)famous raid. It was a time when the standard 'no answer' to the abolition of slavery was not a good enough answer to the abolition of slavery. Blacks were fleeing the South left, right and centre like never before, and more and more whites became disenfranchised with the system (even in the South) that exploited them almost as much as it did the slaves. I agree this far - it meant the death of a way of life. But it was a way of life that had been dying for decades before; it was a way of life that deserved to die.

I honestly think that by trying to preserve or prolong that way of life (and there's no point in denying that's what they were trying to do - some might say slavery, others might say economics, yet others might say culture), the Confederacy doomed itself to failure from day zero. It's the second law of thermodynamics: you can't force an untenable system into tenability. In the end, look what happened. The Confederacy won most of the critical battles, but wasted what infrastructure it had, wound up declaring martial law on its own citizens even as the Union ground it down by attrition.

By the way, I must say that I resent immensely your characterisation of everyone who saw the Northern effort to preserve the Union as necessary as being a brainwashed, indoctrinated 'revisionist'. I may just be a philosophy major, not be a history 'buff' or a military strategist, but at least I think critically. If, at the end of my assessment of the antebellum period and all factors leading up to the Civil War, I come to the conclusion that the opinion that slavery was an evil whose demise could not be delayed was a deciding factor in what caused the war, does that make me a (as 6ixStringJack put it) 'mindless yes-bot for Big Brother'?

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

Friday, October 13, 2006 12:58 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


The connection to state rights is that individual states organize and mostly fund their Guard units. The Guard units are made up of men & women from that state. Those men and women join for the most part with the intention of serving their community, neighbors and state. For the federals to take control of that unit, send them overseas & refuse to allow them to come home is a gross infringement on states rights, and individual rights.

I am well aware of the difference between the trading of slaves, and the institution of slavery itself. My point was that the prohibition of the importation of slaves was the first step toward the demise of the institution.

Yes, slavery was an ongoing issue between the North & South. Religious and regional differences made it a heated issue with neither side able to see the others arguements and causing both to take resistance to their way of thinking as a personal affront. Historians, travelers from abroad, and many others noted the differences in geography, religion, culture, perception, demeanor, etc between North & South to be so profound as to liken to two to being different nations. In many ways they were not far off the mark.

Lincoln's offer to purchase slaves from the South still did not address the issue of the sudden vacuum of labor were the South to accept the offer. Money does not get fields harvested, seed planted, or freight moved. There was simply not enough people in the South at that time to manage the agrarian economy without slave labor.

I agree that slavery deserved to die, but I disagree strongly that the Southern way of life deserved death.

I do not think that slavery doomed the South to death. It was the industrial might, larger poplulation, and naval blockade of the North that defeated the South. A moral issue like slavery did not somehow play into the defeat of the CSA.

Quote:
By the way, I must say that I resent immensely your characterisation of everyone who saw the Northern effort to preserve the Union as necessary as being a brainwashed, indoctrinated 'revisionist'.


I do not recall stating or even insinuating that anyone who believed in the Union was "brainwashed". That is not what I said or intended. If that is what you wish to deduce from my posts, then that is your decision, though it is erroneous. I am not responsible for your inaccurate deduction of my beliefs or statements. Your beliefs on slavery, it's importance in factors leading to the War, and whether the demise of a nation was necessary to end it, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. By that token I am entitled to disagree with you and maintain my own opinions. I will defend your right to your beliefs, even if I myself do not agree or support them. Call me idealistic that way.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org


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

Friday, October 13, 2006 3:45 AM

PURPLEBELLY86


Whoops! Not your post - scratch that last comment, at least insofar as it applies to you. With a topic this long and coming so late to the forum, no wonder I get the authors mixed up. Sorry about that.

But while I disagree with you about the value of the antebellum Southern way of life in relation to the value of the lives of those who were exploited by it, you're definitely to express your opinion and I will also defend your right to do so. I'd like to let you know that I appreciate the fact that you would do the same for me.

But I am entirely in agreement with you about the National Guard issue. I'm just saying that 'states' rights' isn't the only thing at stake, or even the most important thing, as far as the National Guard is concerned. My dad had a grad student that wanted to join the RING, but given the current climate and the 'backdoor draft' decided against it in the end. But it seems that this administration is willing to take any liberty, cross any line, break any rule in pursuit of its foreign agenda - call me a cynic, but it doesn't surprise me that they're misusing the National Guard, especially now that they've legalised torture and denied basic legal rights to American citizens.

Also, it was not slavery that doomed the Confederacy to lose the war per se, but (and here I'm engaging in a kind of what-if history, so this is merely speculation on my part) given the public opinion within the Confederacy during the later years of the war and the actions of the CSA　government in response (including declaration of martial law in several regions), it's no great leap of imagination to think there might have been a longer, more bitter civil war afterwards even if the Confederacy had won.

And didn't you say that it was less that six percent of the CSA population that owned slaves? If so, there must have been plenty of free labour, white and black. And given the compensation for the slaves that were freed, the southern plantation owners would be able to hire the work they got for free for at least long enough to regain an economic equilibrium. Sure, there would have been a short-term hit in the profit-margin, but the economy need not have collapsed as hard as it did during the Reconstruction. It's unfortunate that the state governments were so short-sighted and lacking in creativity that they couldn't have found a better way.

And I think we're still living with some of the effects of the culture split today. The South is still largely rural, largely poorly educated and largely xenophobic, and what I call 'big religion' has taken advantage of all three to take over and pervert what noble elements of Southern culture there were. Like I said, I'd gladly take the commercial cynics in the North and on the West Coast over the religious fanatics in the South. I'm a God-fearing man myself, and I grieve to see what the advent of the televangelist has done to the churches in the South. It's definitely nothing like what Jesus would have wanted for his followers.

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

Friday, October 13, 2006 4:22 AM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:


I do not think that slavery doomed the South to death. It was the industrial might, larger poplulation, and naval blockade of the North that defeated the South. A moral issue like slavery did not somehow play into the defeat of the CSA.


I must disagree; The moral issue of slavery did indeed contribute to the Confederate's defeat; it was their refusal to foreswear their "peculiar institution" that caused European powers to deny recognition of the CSA as a legitimate nation. That lack of overseas allies--and the financial/logistical support they could have provided--was a major factor in the south's loss.

While slavery was not the only issue in the civil war, or even the primary cause of it, it was therefore a major factor in the failure of the Confederate cause.

And frankly, it deserved to be. Minus this issue, there was much to be said for the Confederacy. And the North certain wasn't a nation of angels when it came to human rights. But in the end, it was their failure to reject chattel slavery that doomed the antebellum way of life.



"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

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

Friday, October 13, 2006 1:39 PM

BROWNCOATJIM


Slavery is a funny topic. In America, when we discuss slavery, we refer to the shameful kidnapping and selling of Africans here in America. Americans do like to walk around with our white hats, but do let's remember that we profited quite nicely from the slave trade, and from having the slave labor to work the plantations.

But are Africans the only ones with such a cross to bear? hardly. Where do you Suppose Shaquille O'Neill got his irish last name from? It was common practice to take irish slaves, who were politely referred to as indentured servants, to the Carribean islands to cut sugar cane, alongside kidnapped Africans. How long do you suppose it took for some irish lad, knowing he would never see the auld sod again, to realize just how good those brown-skinned girls were looking?
Slavery is a human stain, certainly not a southern one. no culture has ever had their hands entirely clean, except perhaps those who were being enslaved.




Simon: "Were there any Feds?"
mal: "No, no Feds, just an honest brawl between folk."

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

Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:56 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Well, there's no use in trying to tell Purplebelly your opinion. His/hers is apparently the only one that matters and the only one that is right. It is also apparent that he/she is very proud of their vocabulary skills because they like to put at least three big words that nobody uses in conversational speech in every sentence. Good for you for picking up a few books on your own when our centralized public school system is designed to fail.

Maybe he/she will be singing a different tune when he/she's working at WalMart, buying WalMart clothes because it's the only store that sells clothes, using the credit on his/her RFID chip "Real ID", which also doubles as a drivers license and passport, and living in a cashless society so every single purchase he/she makes is catalogued (just as the Bible said we would one day, not that I claim to be religious by any means).

Keep buying all of the foreign merchandise we consume in mass quantities in our throw-away society and tell yourself that WallStreet and NY are any better than your evil South for allowing third world exploitation and slavery. Like I said before... just because they're not black and just because they aren't slaving away in your back yard doesn't mean that we haven't enslaved countless more people to preserve the "American Way". I think your heart is in the right place, but your head is up your ass.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Monday, October 16, 2006 3:24 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly86:
Whoops! Not your post - scratch that last comment, at least insofar as it applies to you. With a topic this long and coming so late to the forum, no wonder I get the authors mixed up. Sorry about that.



Think no more of it my friend.


Quote:
But while I disagree with you about the value of the antebellum Southern way of life in relation to the value of the lives of those who were exploited by it, you're definitely to express your opinion and I will also defend your right to do so. I'd like to let you know that I appreciate the fact that you would do the same for me.



We will have to agree to disagree I suppose. I do not believe the institution of slavery or its dissolution warranted the demise of the Southern way of life. The South is poorer for it's passing.

I would also point out that the South was not the only people to benefit from slavery. Many slaves were imported on ships owned by Northern businesses and entered the U.S. at Northern ports. Much coin wound up in the pockets of Northern man for the importation and sale of slaves. Northern states did not turn away goods picked or produced by slaves. If anything the exploitation of slaves is an American failing, not just the responsiblity of the South.

I appreciate your defense of my opinion and hope not to stress it too much.


Quote:
Also, it was not slavery that doomed the Confederacy to lose the war per se, but (and here I'm engaging in a kind of what-if history, so this is merely speculation on my part) given the public opinion within the Confederacy during the later years of the war and the actions of the CSA　government in response (including declaration of martial law in several regions), it's no great leap of imagination to think there might have been a longer, more bitter civil war afterwards even if the Confederacy had won.



I agree. There was internal strife both sides of the Mason Dixon line in regards to the War and how it was handled. Both sides seemed convinced the fighting would be over after First Manassas. Civilians on neither side were prepared for four long bitter years of fighting or the toll it would take on the land, resources, or the people.

I have thought much on the aftermath had the South won her Independence and I think there would have been much tension between the US & CSA for at least for a couple of decades. I do think though that given time for the wounds to heal the two would have learned to live together, trade & diplomacy would have continued and both would have been better for it. Just my musings.


Quote:
And didn't you say that it was less that six percent of the CSA population that owned slaves? If so, there must have been plenty of free labour, white and black. And given the compensation for the slaves that were freed, the southern plantation owners would be able to hire the work they got for free for at least long enough to regain an economic equilibrium. Sure, there would have been a short-term hit in the profit-margin, but the economy need not have collapsed as hard as it did during the Reconstruction. It's unfortunate that the state governments were so short-sighted and lacking in creativity that they couldn't have found a better way.



No, it was not I that said 6% of Southerners owned slaves. I have read many figures, but it seems the average was somewhere around 18%. 6% is close to the figure of homes that owned more than one slave.

I am not certain I agree with your assessment that compensation for slaves would have allowed the hiring of labor sufficent to maintain the agrarian economy of the South. The number of slaves could not have been replaced easily or in any sort of short time span to keep crops from being lost. There simply was not a large enough population in the South to compensate for the sudden loss of slave labor. There was also the question of what to do with so many freed slaves. How would they live? Where would they live? How would they be educated? Who would educate them? Who would pay for education and housing? Would they follow Lincoln's proposal to deport all of them back to Africa? How is that responsible or humane when most of the slaves had been born in the US? How would they live there or was the US simply to stick them on a ship & wash their hands of the responsibility?

We must also keep in mind the basic cause of the bid by the South for Independence: determination of their own fate & future. They did not want people or government outside of their states dictating what they could or could not do. Like it or not, the people of the South did not want the abolitionists, Lincoln, or the federals telling them what to do. They saw the issue of slavery as a Southern issue and that no one in the North or Washington D.C. should force their beliefs or decisions on them. I can not say I think they are wrong. Slavery is wrong, but determination of your own fate and style of life is yours, not someone in another state or a government that was not set up to interfere in our lives.

I think it is unfortunate that there was no other option for slavery at the time, or before it. I find it unfortunate that compromise was not reached by either side. I find it unfortunate that an alternative could not be found at the time that Lincoln decided to push his agenda to have the South forced back into the Union. That my friend is yet another tale.


Quote:
And I think we're still living with some of the effects of the culture split today. The South is still largely rural, largely poorly educated and largely xenophobic, and what I call 'big religion' has taken advantage of all three to take over and pervert what noble elements of Southern culture there were. Like I said, I'd gladly take the commercial cynics in the North and on the West Coast over the religious fanatics in the South. I'm a God-fearing man myself, and I grieve to see what the advent of the televangelist has done to the churches in the South. It's definitely nothing like what Jesus would have wanted for his followers.



Here again, we agree.

The South is largely still rural, but much of that is by choice. Southerners like the country. For the most part they prefer open spaces and natural scenery to skyscrapers, traffic, and smog. Farming, hunting, fishing, and the outdoors are a way of life to many in the South and has been since pioneers first came here. That does not make it wrong, just different.

I am not so certain I can agree with poorly educated. I have not seen any statistics on Southern education levels versus those of the North, but if you have some I would be interested in seeing them. I do not think poor education is unique to one area or the other. I also think that xenophobia is a human trait, not a Southern one. I have been to several cities in the North and was treated like a leper because of my accent alone. I am college educated, well bred, and I like to think well groomed and dressed. So, why is it I am treated like an alien in New York City or Washington D.C.?

Religion has always been used by people to control others and for profit. That again is not native only to the South. Certainly many people in more rural areas are very devout, but I don't know that I would call them "fanatics". I have seen fanatics all around the world and the majority don't have a Southern drawl or fly a Confederate battle flag.

You are welcome to your Northern cynics my friend. I will stick with the friendly, courteous, and devout people of the South.

As for Jesus, I think he would have wanted us to not to judge one another, that is for another to do.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org


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

Monday, October 16, 2006 3:42 AM

BROWNCOAT1

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


Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
I must disagree; The moral issue of slavery did indeed contribute to the Confederate's defeat; it was their refusal to foreswear their "peculiar institution" that caused European powers to deny recognition of the CSA as a legitimate nation. That lack of overseas allies--and the financial/logistical support they could have provided--was a major factor in the south's loss.

While slavery was not the only issue in the civil war, or even the primary cause of it, it was therefore a major factor in the failure of the Confederate cause.

And frankly, it deserved to be. Minus this issue, there was much to be said for the Confederacy. And the North certain wasn't a nation of angels when it came to human rights. But in the end, it was their failure to reject chattel slavery that doomed the antebellum way of life.



Slavery was a touchy issue at the time. England was no stranger to slavery, but had done away with the institution long before. France frowned upon it as well. Both of these European powers had strong ties to the South, traded with the South, and sympathized with her, but would not recognize them as a nation until it either freed the slaves or proved she could stand on her own against the Union. In this way, yes, slavery contributed to the fall of the CSA. The South had been led to believe by her would be allies that a major victory would be enough to cause one or both to enter the fray as mediators or support, hence the push into Maryland and Sharpsburg, then the ill fated push into Pennsylvania.

The blockade of ports and lack of necessary supplies, food, medicine, and arms was a major factor in the loss of the War. So too was the industrial might and larger population of the North.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org


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

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:06 PM

PURPLEBELLY86


Quote:
We must also keep in mind the basic cause of the bid by the South for Independence: determination of their own fate & future. They did not want people or government outside of their states dictating what they could or could not do. Like it or not, the people of the South did not want the abolitionists, Lincoln, or the federals telling them what to do.


Perhaps you've heard of Kant's 'principle of forfeiture'? Basically, Kant systematised his ethical system (the ethics of personal rights; the ethical system most people nowadays follow even without realising it) around the Golden Rule. Because other people have free will and moral agency, and we recognise the fact that we want our own free wills and moral agencies respected by others, we should treat others the same way we ourselves want to be treated. When in doubt, we should try to imagine what the world would be like if everyone treated everyone else in the way in question. But he had an exception. Where a person violates another person's free will, by killing them, by stealing from them, by lying to them or by enslaving them, their rights are forfeit in proportion to the crime they committed against the other person.

By my estimation according to this ethical system, the Radical Republicans then were fully within their rights to demand the cessation of slavery. In fact, it was their duty: the South wasn't demanding to determine its own fate and future alone, but also all the members of an entire societal caste, without any reference to them or to their own consciences. Now the South can not like this all it wants. When was the last time you saw a criminal say they wanted to go to jail, (to have their liberty violated, as it were) because they did something wrong? I view slavery as just such a crime; a societal one if not a personal one. But don't come to me saying that the South was only interested in preserving their own liberties and their own way of life, when so much more than that was at stake.

Now, before you come back at me with the stock replies: yes, I know there was slavery in more than one nation besides the CSA; yes, I know the North conspired in slavery for some time previously; yes, I know that the North was not warring for some altruistic, self-sacrificial purpose despite the propaganda to the contrary; yes, I know that most Southerners did not own slaves (my ancestors among them). But if you think that these an argument for the Confederacy make, you should have another think coming, my friend.

There's a book you should read, perhaps: Ed Ayers' 'In the Presence of Mine Enemies'. It shows what life was like in two border counties two years before the Civil War started up until Gettysburg. And it paints a very realistic, very gritty picture. Pre-war Democrats in the North were very similar to pre-war Democrats in the South, there were small farms on both sides, there were even people for and against slavery on both sides of the border between Pennsylvania and Virginia. Only difference was: Franklin County had no slaves and a significant freeman minority, whereas Augusta County had quite a few landowners and wealthy merchants who did own slaves.

When the war started, the people who had once thought similarly (the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats) began to think differently. The Northern Democrats put aside their defence of slavery and began to be the party that wanted to 'preserve the Union'. The Southern Democrats became even more adamant on 'their rights'. Several Southern Republicans had moved to Franklin pre-war, and became adamantly abolitionist, while several others joined the Democratic party and later the Confederacy.

When the Northern troops marched into the South, there was an awful lot of looting and general wartime mayhem that occured in every Southern city or village they passed through. Many of the Northern troops were lacking in discipline, being either green or hungry after the early defeats. Their behaviour was often less than admirable, leading the South to characterise the Yankees as barbaric, menacing pillagers and vandals - a description which, while not necessarily accurate for most of the Northern regiments, was nonetheless understandable.

The Southern troops ended up actually occupying Franklin County. But while they treated all the white people with the friendly, devout courtesy you describe, their behaviour toward the freemen and the remainder of the Virginia slave population who had fled during the opening chaos of the war and stayed in Franklin Co. was often as bad as the Reavers'. Many blacks were shot, raped, taken and treated like livestock either to be executed or sold back into slavery.

I actually liked Ayers' book for the same reason I liked Firefly - he puts more emphasis on the stories of individual people in Franklin and Augusta Cos. than on the political events leading up to and during the War itself (though these are often quite influential, and he does go on long tangents on the political implications of some action or another by the State governments or by the Federal government on the mindsets of the people he's dealing with. But it does require a vocabulary a little bigger than 6ixStringJack thinks necessary.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Sat, November 16, 2024 20:08 - 54 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Mon, November 4, 2024 17:34 - 21 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:19 - 34 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
Halloween
Sun, November 3, 2024 15:21 - 43 posts
Teri Garr, the offbeat comic actor of 'Young Frankenstein' has died
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:20 - 5 posts
Poetry in song
Sat, October 26, 2024 20:16 - 19 posts
WHY DID THEY CANCEL THIS??? *FIREFLY* Ep 14 Reaction Movie Night with Jacqui Episode -1-14 Reaction
Thu, October 24, 2024 00:04 - 14 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL