Is River a Slave? by Nogard

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Is River a Slave?

POSTED BY: NOGARD
UPDATED: Monday, January 11, 2010 09:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6724
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 3:45 PM

Just something I was wondering on. We know slavery is legal in the 'verse. The Alliance treats River like a piece of property Simon stole from them, and they're both labeled as fugitives.

It was my original impression that they were fugitives because Simon worked with the underground movement of rebels to get River out, and it's claimed that Simon and River are enemies of the state. However, then I was looking at scripts of some of the first episodes and noting the references to slavery, and then there's Blue Hand men calling River's abscondence a "theft". I made a quick Google search, but I couldn't find out one way or t'other.

Does this sound plausible, or is there evidence I'm missing that shows I'm mistaken?

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

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 4:01 PM

KINGEICHOLZ

No it's not slavery I will explain it to you.You see slavery is when you buy someone to do work for you like pick cotton and not pay them they didn't have her work they just eexspearmented on her so it was not slavery.I hope you understand now.

Ask me anything and i will have the answer.

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

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 4:15 PM

NOGARD

I know what slavery is. I was wondering as to River's legal status or how the Alliance presents it following her escape. Slavery is people treated as property to be bought and sold, independent of what said people are made to do during their bondage. Presumably the owner of a slave could legally do whatever with them under the law of the Alliance.

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

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 4:30 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

It's entirely possible they consider her a slave, or even something closer to non-human property. Dobson in the pilot refers to her as a 'precious commodity' and doesn't even seem bothered by the idea.
Brings up a few other questions, as well, regarding the Tams. There's much debate on whether they knew what was going down or were innocent victims. So. Was River 'sold' into slavery? Or did the Alliance simply start considering her brain their property after doing so much to enhance it?

[/sig]

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

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 1:04 AM

LWAVES

I don't think she could be considered a slave.
As far as we know she was never bought or sold by anyone. She willingly went to the Academy, even if they did mislead her about their true intentions. If the experiments had been completed I imagine the Alliance would have used her for their own means.
She's definitely a kidnap victim of some kind and was held against her will but that doesn't make her a slave.
As for the Alliance 'presenting' itself then like all governmental bodies they will cover the real truth up. They could say River was a dangerous psycho or something and Simon was a fugitive because of helping her escape, as I'm sure the members of the underground movement are as well. They wouldn't need more than that because everyone in the know won't say anyhting and River and Simon obviously aren't going to say anything.
I do agree with the comment that they see River as property. They have invested time, money and probably training into developing her and they want her back.

"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

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

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 2:41 AM

IMNOTHERE

Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:

She's definitely a kidnap victim of some kind and was held against her will but that doesn't make her a slave.

Nope. She's a minor who's parents quite legally placed her in the custody of the Academy. Simon is a fugitive because he has kidnapped her from the Academy. I'm sure Mr Tam Senior will happily confirm that.

...at least, that's how any official orders, warrents, news reports etc. would describe the situation. I think we can assume that unofficial brain surgery, psychotic operatives & bounty hunters etc. are strictly off the record.

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

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:15 AM

RIVERLOVE

River had all these amazing abilities and talents, so how come she wasn't able to escape from the Academy in 4 years?

River was not a slave. She was worse off than a slave. She was a guinea pig subject of in-human Nazi-type experimentation.

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

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 1:02 PM

LWAVES

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:

She's definitely a kidnap victim of some kind and was held against her will but that doesn't make her a slave.

Nope. She's a minor who's parents quite legally placed her in the custody of the Academy. Simon is a fugitive because he has kidnapped her from the Academy. I'm sure Mr Tam Senior will happily confirm that.

...at least, that's how any official orders, warrents, news reports etc. would describe the situation. I think we can assume that unofficial brain surgery, psychotic operatives & bounty hunters etc. are strictly off the record.

It was the experimental side of things that I was actually referring to with the kidnap comment. I should have made that clearer. River willingly went to the Academy (with parents permission) but I'm sure that would never have happened had they known the full truth. They all thought that she was going there to get the best education etc. At some point after arrival the situation changed. I was always under the impression that she wasn't immediately going for experiments, I would have assumed they would test her first in lesser ways to see what they really had. When they realised they had someone special the situation changed again and as soon as she was held against her will (and at some point she sent Simon the coded letters) she became a kidnap victim or a prisoner is probably a more accurate description.

Yes, Simon is a fugitive for helping to get her out and keeping her out but so is River for the actual escape. Simon didn't kidnap her though. She wasn't being forced to stay with him, she wanted out, so she became a fugitive herself.

On another note but still sort of on topic I always wondered what would have happened if River hadn't wanted to go or her parents didn't want her to. Would the Alliance/Academy have used another way to get her?

"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

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

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:14 AM

CAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Nogard:
We know slavery is legal in the 'verse.

Do we? I recall evidence of contract labour in the 'verse, such that you could make an agreement to work for someone for X years, and then be required to keep your agreement, but not slavery as such.

I believe that Mal once made a reference to people he described as "slave-traders", but he may have been speaking metaphorically, and even if he was not, that would not show that slavery is legal in the 'verse. After all, Mal is a thief, but theft is not legal in the 'verse.

If the Alliance had a legal claim on River, they would probably have been prepared to act more openly in getting her back.

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

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:58 AM

SUPPRESSIOFALSI

On that note, our own state department estimated back a few years ago that we have 30,000 slaves working here in the United States.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand BINARY, and those who don't.

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

Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:02 PM

NOGARD

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Nogard:
We know slavery is legal in the 'verse.

Do we? I recall evidence of contract labour in the 'verse, such that you could make an agreement to work for someone for X years, and then be required to keep your agreement, but not slavery as such.

I believe that Mal once made a reference to people he described as "slave-traders", but he may have been speaking metaphorically, and even if he was not, that would not show that slavery is legal in the 'verse. After all, Mal is a thief, but theft is not legal in the 'verse.

If the Alliance had a legal claim on River, they would probably have been prepared to act more openly in getting her back.

In Shindig there was the respectable gentleman who helped Kaylee by telling off the snooty popular girl with "It must have taken a dozen slaves a dozen days to get you into that getup... 'Course your daddy tells me it takes the space of a schoolboy's wink to get you out of it again." The first part of that seems to be received as a complement. As this is a classy party, it seems that slavery must be perfectly acceptable. Though technically Mal advertises his ship for illegal transport at the same party, he does so in a shady fashion. In contrast, the man who helps Kaylee is out in public and talking with popular girls when he describes slavery as though it were an acceptable practice.

As Shindig starts with Mal ripping-off the slaver in the bar, I took it as introducing us to the idea that slavery is an acceptable part of this world. Though there are no real indications of such, I first interpreted the women modeling clothes in the shop windows as slaves. After rewatching the show several times, I can see that there's nothing to real say they are. Live modeling could just be a fashion of the time, which is supported by Wash and Jayne wanting to look at the models instead of the clothes.

Anyway, there's the slaver in the bar, and then the man at the party, and then Mal compares being Atherton's personal Companion with being a slave. It's a theme of the episode.

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

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:52 PM

CAZARIL

I don't think River is a slave... But I do think that the surgeons/scientists who altered her brain look at her as a thing (or maybe a medium), and the work/results belong to them. Therefore, when Simon helped her escape, he was stealing their work.

Hence Dobson's quote about being a "precious commodity". She's no longer looked at as a person, but simply the sum of the work that was done to her.

Also, in the deleted scenes form Serenity (the Haven scene), Mal makes the comment "Somebody decided her brain was just another piece of property to take"... Which only goes towards reinforcing my opinion.

As for slavery, I think it does exist. What there is, is no evidence to whether or not the Alliance encourages it, or makes any attempt to stop it. It's use might be a way of show that worlds like Persephone "Shindig" (which is listed as a border planet), are not yet completely civilized.

To me, slavery and indentured servitude go hand and hand (no, I'm not saying that they are the same, but a society that tolerates one, seems to be willing to tolerate the other). Higgins' Moon had indentured servants, and it appear that the Companion Guild allows them too ("Train Job" Inara states that Mal is her indentured man, and they'll have to add another 6 months on to his service for his attempted escape).

As for the "Slave-Traders" at the beginning of "Shindig", yes they shang-hi'd people, but I've never been convinced that those people would be slaves. They were being taken out to terraforming planets, and then for all intents and purposes stranded. Once there, they would be well motivated to pull their own weight, but ultimately, it depends on their treatment. Was it, "Help us, and you get food, water, air, and a place to call your own." - in equal amounts as those who came of their own free will, or was it "Work harder then everyone else, get just enough food, water, air, to survive, and receive nothing in the end", meanwhile "true volunteers" had plenty.

I got the impression that terraforming was dangerous "terraforming planets have a prodigious death rate" and getting people to sign on was difficult. The company running the show would pay Captains to bring "volunteers". Therefore the people were more like those shang-hi'd onto sailing crews.

Caz

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

Thursday, January 7, 2010 3:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

She's more like a sexy/ killy/ mind reading indentured servant, "sold" to the Gov by her status seeking parents.

Bad parents!

The T.Rex they call JANE!

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

Thursday, January 7, 2010 6:07 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

S.I.T. = slave-in-training

Then a runaway slave in the Underground Spacefleet.

Presumably, had Fox not murdered FF, we'd have ssen her smokin hot sexslavery. But we had to wait for Dollhouse for that.

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

Thursday, January 7, 2010 6:18 PM

ANOTHERSKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
She's more like a sexy/ killy/ mind reading indentured servant, "sold" to the Gov by her status seeking parents.

Bad parents!

I'd like to take issue with that. I have it on (admittedly, second hand knowledge) that in the companion books, Joss and Tim Minear say a few words on the Tam parents in conjunction with the "Safe" shooting script.

That is to say, they don't bundle River off to get kickbacks, or keep their status, or their necks, or their fancy sourceboxes, but that it more turns into that. River goes off to school and then River is inducted into a secret program and suddenly their little girl is very, very big politics.

So, while they may have taken the cowards way out(or, time would have told if appearances can deceive more than they have already), I don't think they intended to actually benefit from the situation, whether coerced or no.

The Academy looks like a big thinktank where Alliance science has a perfectly screened pool of people to then route into experimental (and/or secret) programs--military, biological, and technological.

That said, since River has effectively become the full property of under-the-table Alliance experimenters--has in fact, against her will ceased to exist in society as a person, another definition of a slave--and so much of the Tams' story revolves around River's not being recaptured, and Simon's not being arrested (as anyone would be who springs a slave), I'd say for all intents and purposes she has the psyche and plot function of a slave.

Actually, what I found REALLY disturbing(and properly included with all the other 'slave' material in-verse) was the several places they brought in references to sexual trafficking of underage girls re: River and others. The questions a disgusted Mal asks Simon in the scene when he first kicks open her cryo crate, for example.

So short answer: River isn't "designated" a slave, but to all intents and purposes, she is one.

--

Going for a ride.

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

Thursday, January 7, 2010 6:46 PM

CAZARIL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
She's more like a sexy/ killy/ mind reading indentured servant, "sold" to the Gov by her status seeking parents.

Bad parents!

I'll assume you're joking, but it got me thinking... So I went and read part of the script to "Safe" (The one with flashbacks to Simon and River's past). The final scene with his father was not shot as scripted. In the script, they have returned home, and can speak more freely. Simon tells his parents that other children are disappearing, and those that surface are "wrong... aphasic or psychotic...". As the scene progresses, Simon says "River is in trouble", to which his father replies "River isn't here!". Then he goes on to say "We are. And we have to be very careful what we do. This is a government school, Simon. People in our position... it's important that
we show support for this government". Simon responds with "You're talking about politics? This
is about your daughter!". To which his father replies "This is about our lives."

Now it could be taken that his parents are worried about the government stepping in and destroying their lives from a social standing (rumors begin to fly, loss of contracts and/or work).. But I read this as his father is actually afraid for their lives. That speaking out will result in the kind of status change that gets your picture put on the side of milk cartons.

I see the elder Tams as people who made a choice to let their daughter into this government academy, and are proud of the fact. But as it became clear that River was in trouble, they went into denial because they felt there was nothing they could do (towards the close of the scene, Simon asks his father to come with him and help, his father replies "Believe me, Simon... if I thought even for a moment..."). It's why they refused to listen about the letters.

Of course, because they change the script, there are those that could say it never really happened that way... To me, it's insight into the scene itself.

LWAVES: To answer your question "I always wondered what would have happened if River hadn't wanted to go or her parents didn't want her to. Would the Alliance/Academy have used another way to get her?"... I don't think they would have cared about River in the least.

I say this because I don't think that they started with the modifications right away. I would suggest that the curriculum was designed to help spot potential subjects, and it wasn't until they progressed to a certain point, would they have begin anything close to experimentation/torture. I'd be willing to bet that a certain number of students made it through the entire program without being aware of what was going on (except maybe just disappeared), or they were not accepted back the next semester, and only viable subjects were allowed to stay.

Caz

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

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:47 PM

ANOTHERSKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Cazaril
LWAVES: To answer your question "I always wondered what would have happened if River hadn't wanted to go or her parents didn't want her to. Would the Alliance/Academy have used another way to get her?"... I don't think they would have cared about River in the least.

I say this because I don't think that they started with the modifications right away. I would suggest that the curriculum was designed to help spot potential subjects, and it wasn't until they progressed to a certain point, would they have begin anything close to experimentation/torture. I'd be willing to bet that a certain number of students made it through the entire program without being aware of what was going on (except maybe just disappeared), or they were not accepted back the next semester, and only viable subjects were allowed to stay.

Caz

I agree with Caz.
For this to "work" in-verse, the students who are sent home to their families(or those who just remain in the cover Academy--it may really be an actual school for very intelligent kids). logically would not be let in on what else was going on, what strings were attached for certain students.

And it's not as if they would be immediately differentiated either--Simon mentions a few letters from River right at the start, then nothing.
Only after more specific testing, observation and time would anyone be able to tell exactly what they had "on their hands" and who would be suitable for a long-term experiment of this kind--like River. I'm writing a fic on this, and I see it as a very gradual thing, up to a point. Then the (blue)gloves come off (haha) so to speak.

I also see any script revisions as insight.
The "this is about our lives" humanizes Tam Sr. much more, as it's in response to an accusation by Simon that he cares more about politics than his daughter.

Perhaps Joss & Co. didn't want to reveal too much too soon--exactly what kind of position they were all in so that we could set up a strong base of admiration for Simon and a revulsion for his parents--temporarily. Not that I think either would have changed much, but it does set up character development (remember the characterization-debate flurry when it turned out Simon rescued River in person rather than just paying blackout-zone mission impossible teams to extract her?). Retconning, but very nice retconning that fits completely with character motivation.

--

Going for a ride.

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

Friday, January 8, 2010 9:01 AM

CAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Nogard:

In Shindig there was the respectable gentleman who helped Kaylee by telling off the snooty popular girl with "It must have taken a dozen slaves a dozen days to get you into that getup...

Having checked the scene, I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, if River were a legal slave, the Alliance would likely have described her as an absconded slave (admittedly a mentally deranged one).

It would be less likely that someone would pick holes in their story, if that story was completely honest.

BTW - indentured servents did not have that much in common with slaves. Throw one of your servants overboard and you would be hanged for murder; throw one of your slaves overboard and you would be in trouble only if you tried to claim on the insurance. (As in the famous Zong case.)

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

Saturday, January 9, 2010 7:25 PM

ANOTHERSKY

I agree, partly--on the books, killing a slave was destruction of property(STILL echoes of River here), whereas killing an indentured servant was murder. Where the similarity comes in is the historical likelyhood that anyone would prosecute you for killing one. A dead servant means you won't be reimbursed in most cases, and nobody else cares because property isn't involved.

That said, River has more in common one way with an indentured servant: they were more about what they would give you at some point in the future in paying off their debt.

It would be really sick if the Tams had to pay a bunch of money to get her into the Academy.

There is one huge semantic and legal advantage to the Alliance for describing River as a fugitive:

Describing River as a fugitive rather than an absconded slave gets all the small-world slavers, wheelers and dealers(like Badger)interested in one more slave to keep their grubby hands off in lieu of the to-die-for(literally) fantastical reward. It says that she is legally still human, therefore anyone keeping or killing her may be prosecuted (cause the Alliance says so).

Thus, she doesn't disappear into the Rim, and her secret is less likely to leak there.

--

Going for a ride.

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

Sunday, January 10, 2010 6:26 AM

CAVALIER

"the historical likelyhood that anyone would prosecute you for killing one"

Welll, that depends on how the local legal system is executed, and how powerful your attacker was, rather than on the details of your legal status.

Which is probably the important point. In pretty much any legal system the authorities would not have the right to declare someone a slave just because they wanted to. If they did so, they must be powerful enough to ignore the law.

I would say that Rivers problem was not that she did not have a right to the protection of the law - it was that the Alliances' law enforcement arm is less powerful than whatever branch of its security services took an interest in her.

People in Stalin's Russia had legal rights too - but they made no detectable difference if you fell into the hands of the cheka/KGB.

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

Sunday, January 10, 2010 11:51 AM

ANOTHERSKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
"the historical likelyhood that anyone would prosecute you for killing one"

I would say that Rivers problem was not that she did not have a right to the protection of the law - it was that the Alliances' law enforcement arm is less powerful than whatever branch of its security services took an interest in her.

People in Stalin's Russia had legal rights too - but they made no detectable difference if you fell into the hands of the cheka/KGB.

Well yes, I think we're talking about the same thing. It's not that she's legally unprotected (shown in the absconded slave vs. fugitive distinction above) it's that the likelihood of her being treated fairly by the surface everyday "law"--which is separate from and overridden by whatever branch is hunting her--is about nil.

So the historical point I was getting at was "four legs good, two legs better"--not that her legal status was inconsequential, but that now she has disappeared, the only group that cares or knows about her legal status is also the one trying to recapture her, or, barring that, kill her.

At this point I wonder what that Operative's exact purpose was...to recapture, or to kill? If recapture, who would he return her to--the same program, restructured? Since the powers that be are obviously unhappy with the way Mathias ran his.

__

Going for a ride.

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

Monday, January 11, 2010 9:39 AM

CAVALIER

Traditionally, the common law presumed that everyone was free until proven otherwise. If that still holds, everyone who meets River would be required to assume she is free.

As for the Operatives orders - who knows?

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE