Is it wrong to be Pro- Alliance ?

POSTED BY: Booksword
UPDATED: Sunday, March 28, 2010 01:34
VIEWED: 35773
PAGE 1 of 1

BOOKSWORD

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:41 PM

I love my big damn heroes, I mean who wouldn't?

I get that in the large scheme of things they where pretty much screwed over. But didnt the vote go towards the Alliance in the first place.
Besides I like my Verse to be orderly and all.

I get that the Alliance is an Elitist goverment but lets face it. Some bastard needs to do the job. Whoever is in charge somebody gets screwed and exploited.

Its corrupt, its flawed and it allows travesties to take place.

But this has been the case of the Roman Empire, modern times and most proberly the future.

I love Trek and all but there was a minor flaw in the Utopian peaceful loving theme. Basicaly the only thing you can count people on doing is being people.

Plus if the Independents won, what would be the odds that its member planets would start fighting amongst each other.

Planet A doesnt like Planet B because it has a different religion. Planet C envies Planet D due to its resources and suspects that Planet D is screwing them over in trade. Planet E refuses to help Planet F who is facing famine to feed its own populace.

With the Alliance its one pain in the ass over all. The Independents are united by the common enemy or adversary. There is some resemblance of law , not much but something.

Checks and balances.

I dunno, just a thought I had.

ARCADIA

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:54 PM

No, it wasn't wrong to support the Alliance. It does, after all, genuinely want to make the universe better for the people who live in it. There is nothing wrong with that thought, even if they have proven that their good intentions can lead to redically bad practices.

And you completely have a point with the planet A planet B thing. Think of US history, back to a different war, the Revolutionary War. Afterwards, we spent years under the articles of confederation and the thing you just described is pretyt much what happened. Each state had a different currency, making it difficult to travel. Each start was suspicous of other states. There was chaos and disarray. All their state governments were in serious danger of falling apart. So, they unified, and this made them strong.

The problem, of course, is that the Alliance does have the desire to make life in the universe standard and uniform, which isn't right. On the other hand, in the process of doing so, they may eventually ease lots of the poverty on the rim planets and improve the quality of life, which is good. They aren't doing so now mostly because they don't have the personel resoursed, but in twenty years, Serenity will be sailing in a very different 'verse.

But yeah, it truly was a war with ambiguous rights and wrongs, which is true of most wars. Our BDH might always believe that they were on the right side (with the exception of Inara, who supported unification, and Book, who might have served the Alliance, and Simon and River, who probably were too young to be that invested), the truth is that it was probably best, in the long run, for the Alliance to win.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Objects in Space"

River: It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think...
http://www.stillflying.net/ <-- Check it out!

STICK

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 6:25 PM

Quote:
From the BDM:

Teacher: Why wouldn't everyone want the peace and serenity of the aliance?

(young)River: we meddle.

Teacher: what?

River: we meddle... we tell them what to do, were to go, what to think...

Teacher: No river, we don't tell them what to think... we tell them how-*Jabs forehead with cutting knife*

Though this all happens in a 'dream' sequence, I think it was Joss's way of introducing the big 'bad' alliance and describing why the independents were 'right' to rebel against them.

Was the 'verse better off with a unified government? maybe... Maybe if the Independents won a sort of federation would have formed instead. Maybe a kind of U.N. but with planets. Would this system have been better? No one could say for sure.

The thing about comparing the alliance to the roman empire is that the history of the time was mainly written by Romans. Therefore, it's a little biased. We can look back and see the positives that came out of the time period, but quantifying what was lost is a bit more difficult.

Anywho I could go on and on about this subject and all the parrallels that could be drawn here but that might get a bit boring so i'll shut up now

Quote:

the truth is that it was probably best, in the long run, for the Alliance to win.

Not necessarily... Your assuming that the alliance will last. There's always the chance the alliance (after years of abuse of power, overstretched resources, and the culmination of their sins (Reavers and River

) )simply collapses in on itself leading to a bloody power struggle that could last years if not decades.

BOOKSWORD

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:09 PM

Actualy I would consider the Parliment to be the true evil.

In the original pilot the Commander on the ship wanted to check for survivours, it was his concern for another ship that allowed Serenity to get away.

Goverments meddle, the sway opinion and tell us what to think.

We are free to think what we want.

In the dream we see that most Alliance people work on an assumption of the outer worlds. No real dealing with people on the outer Rim.

The Alliance will survive because of a basic reality, we need order. Are they monstorous bastard yes, but perhaps Miranda will be the wake up call to the people in the Core Worlds that all is not well and to stop seeing the world in rose tinted glasses.

The problem with Necessary Evil is not the Evil part mostly, its the Necessary.

REGINAROADIE

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 8:30 PM

I love questions like these because they're so loaded. It really makes you think about politics and the world you live in and what exactly is it you want and what system is the best way to attain that.

I am a firm believer in human rights and equality and all that. I know it may seem like a fairy tales (and at times it feels like it), but I honestly believe that it is attainable. So of course I'm all for the Browncoats and them wanting a more progressive and democratic galactic rule. But I'm also for an efficient government. And when I say efficient, I don't mean autocratic or dictatorial. I mean efficient as in a good health care system, a good education level, a government that isn't hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and is running in a way that years or decades down the line won't collapse on itself.

Stanley Kubrick once said that his favored political system is a "benign dictatorship". I wouldn't go that far. Personally, so long as a political system isn't running the risk of devolving into complete chaos and becoming a MAD MAX like future, then fine by me.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"There's only one "Return" ok, and it ain't "of the King", it's "of the Jedi."

"Maybe we should start calling your friend 'Padme' because he loves 'Mannequin Skywalker' so much, Right? (imitating robot) Danger...danger...my name is Anakin...my shitty acting is ruining saga."

Excerpt of internet teaser for CLERKS 2.

LINCOLN

Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:02 PM

It is all shades of gray, how dark are you? Bad guys that steal but do the right thing versus REAL bad guys who pretent to do the right thing? The alliance cares for the little guy only enough to keep them inline (while taking from them evything they can), and if that doesnt work crushes them at war...

MIranda is the result of an experiement gone wrong and then hidden, Nazi germany performed experements in "control" and tried to hide the results... while the german people basked in the glory of thier new alliance.

So if you want to stick you head in the sand and enjoy your comfortable life while those on the raggedy fringe suffer, then yes its ok to be Pro-Alliance.

On the other hand it is fiction and its always fun to root for the bad guys on occasion, darth vader makes a scene much more interesting

BARTICUS

Thursday, April 20, 2006 7:15 PM

Yup of course its wrong to be pro-alliance....pro alliance means backing an empire that offers safety and control but all an empire ever does is offer safety to the elite and dupes the poorfolk into fighting for greater glory....like every other empire that has ever existed...the good folks of serenity aren't doing anything illegal when they're smuggling etc....they're just smuggling stuff deemed contraband by the alliance...the alliance who will no doubt be working for the big Pharma and all their shareholders thus making anything non Pharma contraband...i can't believe some of the comments here saying that empire is a necessary evil...believe me i'm english and it never did us any good....it did the rich good but thats the point....america fought against this and due to the founding fathers they set up a perfect system of congress, senate and presidency to cancel each other out and for one not to gain dominance and to sell out the country ....it lasted 200 years and long may it continue.
Personally i also think that that is why firefly got cancelled in the first place....if firefly was all about the adventures of the alliance? Then no contest it'd still be running....as Star trek and Babylon 5 prove with their One World Government visions.

MER

Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:04 PM

Really, it's up to you if whether or not you should be pro-alliance. They have done good, but at what cost?

Also, I'm more concerned with Blue Sun than their damn government. It's a company who has total control over things. I seriously don't doubt that they're trying to slowly take over the alliance by big coporation.

But that's the paranoid in me talking.

LINCOLN

Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:45 PM

Blue Sun - Alliance

same thing or at least at the root of each you will find the same source...

GELASSENHEIT

Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:27 PM

power corrupts no matter what form of government is in charge.

Gelassenheit means Serenity

ARABIKUM

Friday, April 21, 2006 9:40 AM

I´d like to stay out of that discussion, but...

OK. To me there´s an analogy between the Alliance and the actual U.S. government, obviously. You folks might know better, but there´s also a lot of discussion going on about the republican government cutting down a whole lot of “freedom rights”, mostly because of the 9/11 incident.

We had this discussion in Germany as well, because you have no choice but to deal with the dangers and threaths that international terrorism nowadays poses. Thank god, we haven´t been attacked (yet). But one answer in Germany to the question, how to deal with it, always was, that this kind of terrorism, the free world faced on 9/11 (and still is facing) is always and foremost AGAINST every form of freedom, therefore cutting those rights by yourself is definitely the wrong way, because you´re doing exactly what hose terrorists want. We should be proud of being free, even if it makes us vulnerable. I strongly believe in that.

Actually the U.S. government is doing a lot of that stuff, in order to protect their citizens, The problem is, that you´re always in danger of leaving the narrow path of democrazy. I my eyes, the Alliance in Firefly already took that step too far and is now on the brink of becoming a dictatorship. All they wanted was “building better worlds”, but they screwed it up, somehow. The movie shows that clearly.

Don´t get me wrong on this. The Alliance is not the U.S., but it´s something the U.S. might become in a not sop far future, when you´re not paying attention...

At least, that´s my understanding. Look at the operative. He´s not an evil person, he´s just doing evil things for the sake of the good. And those Reaver-Jerks? I don´t have to tell you, what THEY look like, do I ?!

Blue Sun is just a symbol for those global operating companies, who are so mighty, that they just give a s…. about freedom, politics or anything else. We can all name these companies (starting with Fox ?!).

A.

One day.
One mission.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave!
http://www.fireflyday.com/

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 21, 2006 9:57 AM

Joss Wheden is pro-Alliance, I suspect; don’t know why you shouldn’t be, if you want. In interviews he has described the Alliance as “progressive.” A term that, coming form a diehard social and political Liberal like Joss, generally doesn’t mean “bad.” And he has described Mal as someone he doesn’t agree with. The story of Firefly is really a much more complicated story, politically, then I think many people give it credit for.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ARABIKUM

Friday, April 21, 2006 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Joss Wheden is pro-Alliance, I suspect; don’t know why you shouldn’t be, if you want. In interviews he has described the Alliance as “progressive.”

Well, we should exchange our interviews. I read an interview, in which Joss said, the Alliance is something, that has recently been (re-)elected for the 2nd time in his country. I don´t know. Maybe he was talking about the World Wildlife Fund

. Make of it what you like.

Quote:
A term that, coming form a diehard social and political Liberal like Joss, generally doesn’t mean “bad.”

As far as i know, Joss is not liberal. He describes himself as "left" and sometimes as "radical". The latter being quite the opposite of "liberal".

Quote:
The story of Firefly is really a much more complicated story, politically, then I think many people give it credit for.

Well, that´s most definitely the case, I think movies are always best,when there´s enough room left, to have your own thougths and interpretations about it. Joss himself said, that a lot of conservatives actually do like the movie. Which is good, because we need every browncoat we can possibly have. Browncoats unite!

A.

One day.
One mission.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave!
http://www.fireflyday.com/

BARTICUS

Friday, April 21, 2006 2:40 PM

Hmmmm aren't the alliance dressed in grey Nazi SS like uniform....they send killers out to track down people who can be used as secret weapons.....and they experiment on a world wide scale forms of population control!!! How much more 'bad guy' like do you want? What good have they done exactly?

LADYKNIGHT

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barticus:
What good have they done exactly?

No doubt the alliance is at least partly responsable for the technogally that allowed man to leave earth-that-was in the first place. They do good, just not for some.

to quote Shephard Book "A government is merely a body of men, usually noticably ungoverned."

We can't say wether the alliance itself is good or bad. There are good people in it, there are bad people in it, and there are those who just don't give a damn. Just like there is in the rest of the 'verse. It's just, you give someone power, and suddenly everything about them flashes right to the surface for all the world to see.

The alliance is nither a benovolent utopian government (obviously) or an evil empire (Operative quote anyone?) it's just there. It's what is.

As for if it's a good thing they won the war or not... it all depends really. I mean, lots of our characters may have been short-term better off. But what would have happened? Ither absoloute chaos...or a unification, into a single government...

which over the decades would just cause the cycle to repeat.

My step-brother half-recited a speach given by the villian of "Gundam Wing, Endless Waltz" (which I've only seen part of) I don't remember it terrablly clearly, and I've buffered what I remember with my own stuff as I agree with the basic logic.

There are three stages. War, Peace, Revoloution. A war ends, peace comes, then someone dosen't like the new order. Someone rebels. A war comes, a new government takes hold, peace follows. Soon, someone dosen't like it, and they rebel. War, Peace, Revoloution. The three steps in an endless waltz.

TRISTAN

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:21 PM

To lighten up the mood a bit...
If there were no Alliance, who exactly would our BDH's thumb their noses at? I'm sure Mal could pick a fight at some bar on a tiny little moon somewhere without the Unification slant, but it wouldn't be as satisfying, would it?

Remember, this post was just to bring a smile.

One day.
One mission.
One army of Browncoats.
On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://serenityjune23rd.com/

BOOKSWORD

Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tristan:
To lighten up the mood a bit...
If there were no Alliance, who exactly would our BDH's thumb their noses at? I'm sure Mal could pick a fight at some bar on a tiny little moon somewhere without the Unification slant, but it wouldn't be as satisfying, would it?

Remember, this post was just to bring a smile.

One day.
One mission.
One army of Browncoats.
On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://serenityjune23rd.com/

Shakes his head and smiles in admiration.

I would like to believe that if the Independents where in charge their better angels would guide them to be a better and more Democratic goverment.

But I believe in two things.

Necessity demands, what is needed equals action taken. You have billions of people out there, there must be checks and balances. If you are any government to maintain stablity you must sacrifice honor, morality to reach this goal.

We live in First World countries, in theory we could give billions of dollars and resources to maintain and upgrade Third World contries.

But that tips the balance, The Alliance maintains order. They screw over the outer worlds but they manage it.

We can scream individual rights, we can even think that the Independents would do a better job. But do you think if Blue Sun offered the Independents a morally dubious way to win the war wouldnt they take it.

If Blue Sun thought that the Browncoats where more of an Advantage then the Alliance they may have. Logicaly the Independent command would take it because one of the first doctrines of War is to Win.

Also Independent worlds would eventually prey off each other. The world with most ships or manpower would take over those without. Might makes right.

Hell, any world that did not actively support the Independents would be fair game. To the victor the spoils.

We like Order, we like power to our homes and fresh produce in our stores.

The Alliance provides this, they provide a system of trade. Proberly corrupt but workable, a system of law that exist if not flawed.

Much like our world come to think of it.

To me they are no better Angels of our nature just Demons and lesser Demons.

I under stand the Alliance and I respect the Browncoats.

But Necessity demands and we obey.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I trust people to be people. Everything else is fair game.

STARSONG

Saturday, May 6, 2006 4:46 PM

Joss has said on more than one occasion that the Alliance is not at all unlike the US.. that it could be both a force for good and evil.. I believe his example was Viet Nam.. "But Mal can't see the good, because he's VietNamese."

Freedom is messy. Freedom means other people doing things you don't like, and it means people die because no one makes them wear seatbelts or helmets or not take addictive drugs. It means some folks don't have food or medicine or shelter because no one takes money from those who do have those things to play philanthropist.

Lots of folks don't like freedom. Even more don't want other people to have some freedom or another.

And that's as much as I'm gonna say about that.

ZISKER

Saturday, May 6, 2006 5:01 PM

Yes, it is wrong. It is very wrong. And what's more, you're a bad person for thinking it. In fact, you're not really a Browncoat. You're not even a Beigecoat! You're . . .I don't even know the words for you but you'll certainly be in the anti-Christ's legion for thinking such a thing!

Nah, it's shiny. The Alliance is flawed, but it does seem to have its positive aspects as well. We also do get the show from Mal's PoV for the most part and he ain't got no love for it, so our view is a little skewed*. And from a "Hey, guys, this is a TV show" it's a grand creation because it's REALISTIC. There are no utopian governments (just look at the root latin)and it's nice to see a non-Utopian government that still isn't the Evil Empire of Star Wars (not that I didn't enjoy the hell out of that story).

That's a good question about the nature of the Independents - did they want to form a confederacy of their own should they have won? Or did they all want to do their own thing as individual planets?

* Yes, they cut River's brain in Serenity, but in Firefly it was probably Blue Sun doing the cutting. I'm more into the "evil business" than "evil government" theme because I find it more relevant to our world situation as of now.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

MIRANDAN

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:06 PM

I think that from a modern view we regard the Roman Empire as a positive influence but of course things might not have looked so clear cut to a Gaul with a Legion bearing down on him & his.
Good and bad is rarely as clear cut in History as it is on tv, and it is to Joss's credit that the alliance reflects this ambiguity in viewpoint.
I fully believe that Joss is also exploring the contemporary parellels with Iraq and a " Do the ends justify the means ?" moral conundrum about exporting "Progressiveness". See the Special Features on the BDM DVD for Joss's comments.

"We are all Mirandans today"
3 full mags and my swinging cod

BOOKSWORD

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zisker:
Yes, it is wrong. It is very wrong. And what's more, you're a bad person for thinking it. In fact, you're not really a Browncoat. You're not even a Beigecoat! You're . . .I don't even know the words for you but you'll certainly be in the anti-Christ's legion for thinking such a thing!

Nah, it's shiny. The Alliance is flawed, but it does seem to have its positive aspects as well. We also do get the show from Mal's PoV for the most part and he ain't got no love for it, so our view is a little skewed*. And from a "Hey, guys, this is a TV show" it's a grand creation because it's REALISTIC. There are no utopian governments (just look at the root latin)and it's nice to see a non-Utopian government that still isn't the Evil Empire of Star Wars (not that I didn't enjoy the hell out of that story).

That's a good question about the nature of the Independents - did they want to form a confederacy of their own should they have won? Or did they all want to do their own thing as individual planets?

* Yes, they cut River's brain in Serenity, but in Firefly it was probably Blue Sun doing the cutting. I'm more into the "evil business" than "evil government" theme because I find it more relevant to our world situation as of now.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

Thanks for the input, just to make it clear.

Browncoat forever!!!!

In the end it is a matter of perspective, in the age of Rome a legion of soldiers bearing down on me and telling me how to live in my own home would be labeled as agressive foreign asshole.

To the Soilder it would just be him doing his job out of belief, pay or other factors.

To the Ceaser who looks at a map and sees either conquest or possible threat to the stablity to my world vis a via the Empire. The person whose rights and lands I am taking is a number in the equation.

I believe that the Alliance is needed, because I belive in checks and balances.

Necessity demands and we obey.

INDIGOSTARBLASTER

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 8:25 PM

I'm going to have to say I'm more pro-Alliance than not. I'm sure part of the reason is that I'm not very big, and I can't handle a weapon. I couldn't possibly survive outside of civilization, and I think that would be true of many people nowadays.

One example that comes to mind is Inara's socioeconomic position versus Nandi's. Inara has the backing of a guild and of the Alliance in general; she can enforce her property rights and her right to choose her own clients. Nandi had to find a way to bring in guns to match Burgess's to keep what she had worked for, and it sounds like, before she arrived, the "girls" didn't really have much choice about how they conducted their business. So the Independents grumble about losing their freedom, but the Alliance actually permits Companions to have theirs.

Also, think about Liberty(?) settlement, where Saffron supposedly came from. She made up her identity, but I doubt she made up the whole business about there being Maiden Houses where females orphans were kept until they could be married off for trade purposes. I doubt they'll be able to keep that system going, once the Alliance has the resources to intervene.

The way the Alliance gives the BDH's grief over their illegal salvage operations seems petty from the BDH's point of view, but it's just part of enforcing property rights. Someone paid for all that stuff on those ships, and if the ships' occupants have died, it's only fair (it seems to me) that what remains go to their surviving kin.

And it seems to me that the Alliance does strive to be benevolent in other ways (aside from the enforcement of property and civil rights, I mean), rescuing stranded ships and transporting medicines to the border planets, funding hospitals and schools at the Core, etc.

There is this business about their treatment of River. But I suspect that her parents consented to it. There's no way else to explain their reaction to Simon's concerns, I'm thinking (how many parents send their 14-year-old daughters off to boarding school and don't try to visit them or bring them home for a family vacation even once in three years?). So the operations and tests are against River's consent, but not against the consent of her legal guardians, who supposedly have her best interests at heart. The idea that the Alliance would allow citizens to forcibly "donate" their offspring to the nation's greater military good is still offensive; but the fact it was kept secret indicates to me that they knew that it was outrageous and wrong... and allows for the possibility that the Alliance would self-correct this situation once it got out.

Don't get me wrong -- there's lots to quibble with as to whether the Alliance has got this or that policy right, but overall I think I'd rather have the Alliance than not.

Just my two cents,

Indigo S.

ZISKER

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Booksword:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zisker:
Yes, it is wrong. It is very wrong. And what's more, you're a bad person for thinking it. In fact, you're not really a Browncoat. You're not even a Beigecoat! You're . . .I don't even know the words for you but you'll certainly be in the anti-Christ's legion for thinking such a thing!

Nah, it's shiny. The Alliance is flawed, but it does seem to have its positive aspects as well. We also do get the show from Mal's PoV for the most part and he ain't got no love for it, so our view is a little skewed*. And from a "Hey, guys, this is a TV show" it's a grand creation because it's REALISTIC. There are no utopian governments (just look at the root latin)and it's nice to see a non-Utopian government that still isn't the Evil Empire of Star Wars (not that I didn't enjoy the hell out of that story).

That's a good question about the nature of the Independents - did they want to form a confederacy of their own should they have won? Or did they all want to do their own thing as individual planets?

* Yes, they cut River's brain in Serenity, but in Firefly it was probably Blue Sun doing the cutting. I'm more into the "evil business" than "evil government" theme because I find it more relevant to our world situation as of now.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

Thanks for the input, just to make it clear.

Browncoat forever!!!!

In the end it is a matter of perspective, in the age of Rome a legion of soldiers bearing down on me and telling me how to live in my own home would be labeled as agressive foreign asshole.

To the Soilder it would just be him doing his job out of belief, pay or other factors.

To the Ceaser who looks at a map and sees either conquest or possible threat to the stablity to my world vis a via the Empire. The person whose rights and lands I am taking is a number in the equation.

I believe that the Alliance is needed, because I belive in checks and balances.

Necessity demands and we obey.

. . .um, I was being sarcastic. Very, very, very, very sarcastic. VERY sarcastic. I thought the follow-up would make that clear, but apparently I was wrong. I wasn't actually questioning your loyalty as a Browncoat and if you took it that way I apologize.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/
http://forum.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

BOOKSWORD

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:33 PM

Oh I know you where kidding, no offense taken.

BROWNCOATS FOREVER !

CAVALIER

Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:03 PM

I can't help but think of Kipling:

Take up the Multi-Ethnic Cultures burden--
The savage wars of post –unification peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

...

Take up the Multi-Ethnic Cultures burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Independant night?"

BOOKSWORD

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 11:01 AM

The price of free will is choice.

The price of choice is consequence.

Our need to be able to choose defines us.

Our need for Order shapes us.

We accept little sins for a safer tomorrow.

We step over moral lines so frequently until they no longer exist.

And in all this, Chaos waits.

---------------------------------------

In the end I belive both sides of the equation need each other. The resources of the Independents and the Order ( flawed) of the Alliance.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Booksword:
Necessity demands and we obey.

uuuuuuggggggh...... sheeple!

I'll let Ben Franklin do my talking for me.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

You sir, are not a browncoat. It's cool that the alliance likes the show too though.

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

BOOKSWORD

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Booksword:
Necessity demands and we obey.

uuuuuuggggggh...... sheeple!

I'll let Ben Franklin do my talking for me.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

You sir, are not a browncoat. It's cool that the alliance likes the show too though.

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

I consider myself a Browncoat even If I do see the Alliance point of view.

Like the qoute by the way.

\

' To survive is to adapt, to adapt is to sacrifice. Let others have their high ground, I will stay on the low ground where it's safer'

\

There are over Five billion disorderly humans on this mudball. You really think spreading them across the stars isnt going to turn nasty.

Take away a mans security, his sense of checks and balances and everything structured however unfair. And you no longer have a man.

Considers challanging you to a duel at dawn but remembers that 1) swords aint my thing and 2) most of the time pretty much the practical coward.

**Goes looking where he stashed that Browncoat**

Um is Sheeple a bad thing?

MYCROFTXXX

Friday, August 4, 2006 5:04 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

宁静

WYTCHCROFT

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:28 AM

bumped into a similar thread on another site - a few minutes ago (while making the rounds - i like to keep an eye on folk)...

to get back to the 'Verse. It strikes me that the real interesting thing is the eternal 'what next'?

if the Alliance/Parliament 'falls' at the end of the BDM (yeah yeah i know, but IF) then the situation would be a bit like the berlin wall/fall of the soviet thing...

and i can imagine a sequel where things are even scrappier - more grey and complex and where the allegances onboard Serenity would really be tested.

an interesting flux state...

RALLEM

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:36 AM

I am pro alliance and would like to start up a purple belly club in Vermont to maybe work with and compete against any local brown coat organizations.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

WYTCHCROFT

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:41 AM

it's the outfits right???:)

REGINAROADIE

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 4:27 AM

In just re-reading the tread and what everyone has to say, I think that a lot of points are valid and that like politics, it's a far more complex quandary than one would expect.

I think that when The Alliance did form in the beginning when colonization took place, that there was a genuine drive to make things better and to create a new start for humanity so that they wouldn't face extinction. And that in the beginning, things were good. But then over a few hundred years of prosperity, that the Core became complacent and for themselves, with a lot of "out of sight, out of mind" going on. This lead to the war between the Core and Outer Rims, which made things worse. And I think if the show went on, that we'd see more of the complexity of the Alliance. That there would be the Barak Obama's, Dennis Kucinich's and Al Gore's tucked away between the Dick Cheny's, the Karl Rove's, the Ken DeLay's, the Bush's, etc.

I think if the show went on, by the end of the series, three things Could have happened.

1) Miranda becomes the Alliance's equivalent of Watergate. Lots of investigations, exposes, hearings, a cultural shift in opinion and eventual change in administration. The Alliance itself isn't corrupt. Just the people in charge. And with those people out and new people in, maybe things would change for the better.

2) The Alliance goes bankrupt. Basically, the entire government collapses underneath it's weight, Alliance credits become worthless and the government disbands, turning the 'verse into a free for all with planets becoming their own autonomous governments. Chaos might ensue for a while, but a U.N./Federation organization might evolve.

3) Final season would basically be Joss's season long version of RETURN OF THE JEDI, culminating with Mal flying Serenity into the core of one of the core planets, and firing the shot that blows the main reactor up and destroys The Alliance for good, while Gabriel lifts the Emperor or king or whatever and throws him down into said reactor as well.

While #3 would have been entertaining as all hell, I think #1 would have been more realistic, and #2 realistiv, but to a smaller degree.

I would have also liked to have seen a variation of the famous "What have the Roman's ever done for us?" scene from LIFE OF BRIAN.

"And what has the Alliance ever given us in return?"
"Engines for interstellar travel?"
"What?"
"The engines."
"Oh yeah, they did give us that."
"And colonization."
"Oh yeah, colonization. Remember what the moons were like before that, Mal."
"OK, I'll admit that interstellar travel and colonization are two things the Alliance HAS done for us."
"And the routes."
"Well obviously the routes, I mean that goes without saying. But apart from the interstellar travel, the colonization and the routes-"
"Navigation."
"Irrigation."
"Yeah, all right."
"And the saki."
(agreeing murmurs)
"Yeah, that would be something we'd really miss if they left."
"Communication."
"And it's safer to walk the streets at night now, Mal."
"Yeah, they certainly like to keep order. Let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this."
(Everyone's agrees)
"All right, but apart from travel, colonization, navigation, irrigation, communication, order, saki and the routes..WHAT HAS THE ALLIANCE EVER DONE FOR US!!!"
"Brought peace?"
"OH PEACE. SHUT UP!!!"

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

BOOKSWORD

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:55 PM

I would totally pay 18 dollars to see that.

( Hell I would pay for any and all Serenity sequeals, hmmm Cartoon movie on DVD ?)

SPACEANJL

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:14 PM

OMG, put that scene in the BSR now.

('Cos you just know that Jayne is snacking on a bag of otter's noses, right?)

PURPLEBELLY86

Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:56 AM

Hell... if it's wrong to be pro-Alliance in this 'verse, I'm proud to be wrong.

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

ELKSWORTHY

Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:01 AM

Having only become a Browncoat recently, I'm probably not as articulate on the subject as any of you guys, so bear with me.

I'll try to keep this brief. :)

As stated earlier, I think that the Alliance is equivalent to the first-world countries, whereas the outer planets resemble the underdeveloped areas of the world. And as in our world, who's right and who's wrong isn't clear. But I'm an idealist, and I like to think of a world where every country is equal and properly governed... which, while unlikely, seems a hell of a lot more likely without the Alliance in control. The years following an Independent victory would, of course, be extremely hard (especially for those on the central planets, being unaccustomed to poverty), but in the long run I think it would be worth it. It's just a larger-scale version of any revolution (that is, a revolution with uncorrupted people in charge).

Every planet would have equal opportunity to be self-sufficient. With the technology for terraforming, they could manipulate each planet to have ideal living conditions and access to numerous resources. What would be needed would be to entirely eliminate the aristocracy so that every person has an equal opportunity for success.

(ololol communism)

RALLEM

Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barticus:
Hmmmm aren't the alliance dressed in grey Nazi SS like uniform....they send killers out to track down people who can be used as secret weapons.....and they experiment on a world wide scale forms of population control!!! How much more 'bad guy' like do you want? What good have they done exactly?

If this is wrong then what is right?

jk

I am pro alliance, and yes some evil things have happened, but I think as a whole thigs will turn out well for everybody. BTW what's a few planetary populations between friends? Anyone have change for 10,000,000 people.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

BARTICUS

Thursday, July 10, 2008 5:52 PM

Wow it's been a while since i thought about firefly (blasphemy i hear you cry) but to add to the thread and after thinking about it for a couple of years i have absolutely gotta say that if anything i am even more anti alliance than ever. I'm often surprised to see Americans supporting the alliance when it's obvious the founding fathers would be on the side of Mal and co...it doesn't matter if the Alliance has some good points, (i'm sure the British empire had a few - for the elite mainly) but overall the Alliance (like the British empire)is restricting, controlling and willing to put anyone to the sword who does not agree with their world view. This inability to even think that THEY might be wrong thus condemns them.
Hope this helps!

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, July 10, 2008 6:17 PM

Never saw this thread before.....very interesting. The Alliance uses "agents" that leave trails of dead bodies; dead bodies all over the place..ie..Hands of Blue guys just wipe out an entire Alliance squad of police, leave them to fester in their own blood on a Core Planet...and no one is supposed to notice that? The Operative in the BDM wipes out people at the Academy...does anybody care? Who cleans up that mess? The "young miss" that the Operative addresses, what happens to her? Was she killed too, or does she just come back to work tomorrow? Come back and do what? Then the slaughter on Haven, and all of Mal's hangouts....is the citizenry all ok with this? Of course not, they're petrified, just like those living under the oppresive rule of the Nazis, or even the Empire from Star Wars. It is wrong to be pro-Alliance, unless you condone indiscriminate murder of innocents.

SPACEANJL

Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:00 PM

Of course, there could just be a tragic accident at a school. Either a disgruntled student goes a bit Columbine, or the shuttle taking them on a field trip crashes...hell, could even be an atrocity prepetrated by some of those pesky 'Independents' still floating around, disseminating their lies and doctored videofeed. Recently, a group of officers were even massacred when a criminal gang raided a hospital, brave men giving their lives to defend the patients.

Boros, Whitefall...It's so very sad when a civil war erupts on any planet - it would be much better if they were under the secure rule of the Central Planets, so much safer for them.

It's all about the spin, baby. You can bet that that vid-feed got shut down damn quick, and disowned fast. Any housecleaning after that would have been internal and swift. Not sure how they would spin the vast loss of troops against the reavers, without having to admit that the things were real...but I'm sure something would be found to explain it. I mean, it's the perfect opportunity to put troops on some planets, to protect against the reavers, isn't it? Hell, I'm just surprised they don't keep a box of them somewhere to unleash on worlds as an excuse to get called in. (Who knows?)

And the Miranda wave. Sad fact is, this is the bit that has never made sense to me in the BDM. The media is such a tricksy animal. I'm sure one broadcast could be squelched, dismissed, dumped down the schedule in favour of a sports match or a reality show. Sure, you could break in across a number of channels with it, but what happens afterwards? Was it a hoax? Lies? Opposition propaganda? I think Mal's cynical assessment is spot on. Folks will forget it and move on.

Except those politicians who spot a good opportunity to move in on opponents and accuse them. Those who decide to stand on a platform of morality and probity. Those who have corporate sponsership from companies who would love to asset strip Blue Sun.

I'm sorry. Am I ranting in a particularly cynical way? So tell me that I don't have a valid point.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:22 PM

All your points are vaild; probably more true to life than mine. Sometimes I forget that there is no reality....there are only individual perceptions of reality.

Yep, oppressive regimes are usually quite good at cleaning up their messes, and eliminating anybody that saw anything. After all, who's gonna believe a bunch of space thieves led by a scumbag Independent against the word of Parliament. The Tams certainly wouldn't.

SPACEANJL

Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:29 PM

I think if the Tams let themselves believe what they saw, what Simon tried to tell them, then their world would collapse. How could they live with the knowledge that they had done that to their own child/children? Better to bluster and rage, and toe the party line.

I've now started a weird chain of thought in my own head, about who might pick up on that broadcast and have the power to do something about it...

I love the 'Verse.

RALLEM

Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barticus:
Wow it's been a while since i thought about firefly (blasphemy i hear you cry) but to add to the thread and after thinking about it for a couple of years i have absolutely gotta say that if anything i am even more anti alliance than ever. I'm often surprised to see Americans supporting the alliance when it's obvious the founding fathers would be on the side of Mal and co...it doesn't matter if the Alliance has some good points, (i'm sure the British empire had a few - for the elite mainly) but overall the Alliance (like the British empire)is restricting, controlling and willing to put anyone to the sword who does not agree with their world view. This inability to even think that THEY might be wrong thus condemns them.
Hope this helps!

I would like to state my opinion that I think the alliance was right in forcing the border worlds into submission because it was the Alliance who terra-formed those moons and planets into Earth like bodies for their own people to settle. They did not go through all of the trouble and expense for people to move there and start their own governments. Were the rebels entirely at fault for wanting to rule them selves? No! I am sure the Alliance could have and should have done more to ensure the survival and success of the people who colonized the border planets and should have provided a sense of belonging to the alliance by placing on each of those planets a Governor who would be responsible for laying an infrastructure and for defense of those rocks, but they didn’t and the people on those rocks decided since they were on their own they should rule them selves.. With that said I think it may have been important for the rebels to have fought the war because by doing so they were able to voice their concerns so that even after the Alliance squashed them it had to address the many discrepancies so that everyone would have to accept their rule.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

SPACEANJL

Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:50 PM

There's nothing to say that Governors were not appointed, and then decided to secede, is there?

The argument that the Alliance went to trouble and expense to terraform planets - Of course, this could all go a bit 'Battlefield:Earth', with the Alliance turning up to repossess a planet that has not met it's quota of production (yeah, I read the book - out of sheer disbelief.)

And I don't think any discrepanies will be addressed. Rebuilding on planets with natural resources, oh yes, but the dirtballs will just get left.

RALLEM

Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Never saw this thread before.....very interesting. The Alliance uses "agents" that leave trails of dead bodies; dead bodies all over the place..ie..Hands of Blue guys just wipe out an entire Alliance squad of police, leave them to fester in their own blood on a Core Planet...and no one is supposed to notice that? The Operative in the BDM wipes out people at the Academy...does anybody care? Who cleans up that mess? The "young miss" that the Operative addresses, what happens to her? Was she killed too, or does she just come back to work tomorrow? Come back and do what? Then the slaughter on Haven, and all of Mal's hangouts....is the citizenry all ok with this? Of course not, they're petrified, just like those living under the oppresive rule of the Nazis, or even the Empire from Star Wars. It is wrong to be pro-Alliance, unless you condone indiscriminate murder of innocents.

This sort of stuff probably happens all the time in our world today, but I think these types of incidents would be spun into being the faults murderous Tam's, by the Alliance and the Hands of Blue so that outrage would be leveled against the brother and sister and not the actual agents. Aren't the Tams responsible for all of those policemen's deaths by going onto the core planet though, when they must have known the Hands of Blue would do that to anyone who was in contact with River?

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

RALLEM

Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAnJL:
There's nothing to say that Governors were not appointed, and then decided to secede, is there?

The argument that the Alliance went to trouble and expense to terraform planets - Of course, this could all go a bit 'Battlefield:Earth', with the Alliance turning up to repossess a planet that has not met it's quota of production (yeah, I read the book - out of sheer disbelief.)

And I don't think any discrepanies will be addressed. Rebuilding on planets with natural resources, oh yes, but the dirtballs will just get left.

I did not read Battlefield Earth, so I cannot speak on that half, and maybe the Alliance did appoint Governors who decided to secede, but if they did appoint Governors then they didn’t do a very good job. Now to your quote, I would like to point out that it was spoken by Mal, that it was spoken by a bitter man who no longer was apart of the common man, so how can he speak for them? If it were a statement true before the war, then I think that quote shows that my scenario of the Alliance not providing any form of Government to lay the infrastructure of provide defense was probably more accurate.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

SPACEANJL

Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:31 PM

?? What quote? I'm confused. I've lost the plot here (a not uncommon phenomenon). 'Cos all the rant is my very own.

WYTCHCROFT

Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:34 PM

LOL!!!!!!!!!

RALLEM

Friday, July 11, 2008 10:40 AM

So you're telling me that last line of your previous post wasn't a quote? I assumed it was and that was the only way I could understand what you meant.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

SPACEANJL

Friday, July 11, 2008 1:33 PM

No, it wasn't a quote. What I meant to say was - I don't think discrepancies between planets will be addressed. I think planets that have something to offer in the way of natural resources (say, maybe oil) will get help and funds for rebuilding from the Central Planets. Poor planets will get left to fall to pieces or starve.

I have a very low opinion of humanity, and I don't think five hundred years will change Man's basic unpleasantness. Sorry.

RALLEM

Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:03 PM

You won't get an argument from me and I think mankind will only change when it is profitable to do so.

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

MOONDOG

Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:54 PM

I'm going to toss out a pertenant quote here from H. Beam Piper (anyone remember him?) from his book Space Viking: "It may be...that there is something fundamentally unworkable about government itself. As long as Homo Sapians Terra is a wild animal, which he has been and always will be until he evolves into something different in a million or so years, maybe a workable system of government is a political-sciense impossability...Then we'll have to make it work the best way we can and when it breaks down, hope vthe next try will work a little bit better for a little bit longer."

AG05

Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:53 AM

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

Now Then:

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

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

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

MOONDOG

Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:16 AM

I really don't like to step on the romantisism involved in the modern view of the "old south" but it was a highly stratified society that was an attempt to recreate the culture of the renaissance. That's why it has been refered to as "A rich man's war and a poor man's battle." As to how the Independants would have kept together had they won, you have only to look to West Verginia, which secceeded from the confederacy.

MOONDOG

Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:25 AM

Wonderful--I've read that poem several times (White man's burden if I remember correctly) And you kept bang on to the thrust of the origional--I take my hat off to you. There was one line in the origonal poem, though, that hits right on a serious problem with colonialism--"Send forth the best ye can." The drain on the dymanic portion of the population led to weak government at home--Hmmmm...

CHRISISALL

Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:19 AM

The Alliance won & tried to tell everyone how to live, if the Independents had won, I suspect individual rights would have been respected a bit more, but then they would have tried tellin' folks how to live after a while as well. Governments are like tires; you only get so many miles off 'em before they go bad & ya need to change 'em.

So the answer to the original question....no.

The moderate Chrisisall

AG05

Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:40 AM

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

Now Then:

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

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

Done with work, so onward:

The first settlers of the outer rim planets settled out there beyond Alliance control (assuming the Alliance even existed at the time), and some planets went at least 1 generation without Alliance "assistance". It seems reasonable, then, that a group of colonies, geographically and politically isolated from the main population, who have survived by their own hard work and grit, would resent and resist a move to force "civilization" upon them. And let us not forget, the Alliance started the war (according to Jayne, at least).

I'm also not too sure about the Alliance's goodwill and desire to spread enlightenment throughout the system. The series mentions several times that, in the process of terraforming and settling the outer planets, the Alliance appears to care very little for the safety of well being of the pioneers. They use slave labor for terraforming projects, send settlers out with little more than a few supplies and a herd, and while they may send medicine to a economically productive mining town, they don't seem to care much when it gets stolen. So I really don't see them spreading the light of civilization quite as much as some folks might think.

Personally, I'm anti-Alliance, simply because I think that imposing your ideals upon others is the height of arrogance, and doing so at gunpoint the worst abuse of power. I don't give a rat damn how benign your intentions are, or how beautiful of peaceful or rich your society is, you don't have the right to force me to join it, and sure as hell don't have the right to kill me if I'm not a part of it.

I respect the right of your society and it's people to exist, even though I don't want to be part of it. And I respect the right of people to choose that wa of life over mine. All I ask is that same respect and that same choice. The Alliance doesn't offer that choice. The Independents do.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:44 AM

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

Which is why I would've gone Independent...deeper treads.

The tire-analogy-continuin' Chrisisall

MOONDOG

Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:45 AM

"What price freedom?"

AG05

Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by moondog:
"What price freedom?"

Any.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

LEEDAVIDT

Monday, December 22, 2008 4:39 PM

well, being a trekky in my alter-ego i can understand the desire to be a part of the "federation"...however the browncoat in me tells me the gorram alliance isn't the answer...if i've ever learned one thing..browncoats stick together like brothers...wouldn't want the verse to be any other way...thanx for the question

http://www.myspace.com/leedavidt

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:49 AM

Having a government and orderliness is shiny and all, but why the need for an Empire?
You would rather disolve the United States, and Britain, Canada, or wherever you are, and instead be under the thumb of the United Nations run by Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Somalia, Egypt, Sudan, Hezbollah? (many of them headed one of the important UN councils recently, in their rotation, overruling the above listed nations of representative Democracy)?

The Rim Worlds each had a government. They seemed to be satisfied. They also resisted becoming enslaved under Alliance Domination. If you give us your address, we could have your friendly neighborhood whiteslaver come by and package you off to your desired enslavement. If you have daughters, we'd make a bunch of money on the deal, too (you get nothing, of course, being a slave).
I suppose you also revere the tidy doings of Alliance-endorsed Niska ruling Ezra?

Most of the World would disagree with you. They did not salivate at the prospect of enslavement and extermination under the Worldwide reign of the Third Reich, nor the Empire of Japan, nor Napoleon, nor Rome, nor Kaiser Wilhelm, nor King George (British Empire), nor Gengis Khan. Just because their minions won some battles and they reigned for a period of time, why should they be annointed all-time ruler? Why not select a governemtn more responsive to the governed? These are the modern day comparisons of your hallowed Liberty-squashing Alliance.

Yes, it is wrong to be pro-Alliance.

CAVALIER

Friday, January 2, 2009 5:47 PM

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

Always nice to have a satisfied customer…

Returning to the point of this thread, I do not see how we can claim to have enough information about the war to have an informed opinion of either side. All we really know is what the sides were called, that the Independents were conquered, and that both sides considered themselves to be in the right. It is as if all you knew about WWII was that Germany was conquered at the end. If that is all you know, you have little basis to make claims about who was in the right.

As for the larger question: it seems to me that the important point about a Government is legitimacy: who has the right to order you to do what? The fun comes when people disagree about who the rightful ruler is, or agree that it should be decided by rules that are, in practice, unworkable. You cannot, for example, have a democratic government of any size without a mass media. No one would have any idea about who or what they were voting for…

BOOKSWORD

Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:52 PM

You know I have enjoyed the intelligent conversations this thread has bought up however I belive I have the final answer as to why to go Pro Alliance.

Purple..is slimming.

I said it, Purple is stylish and every so pretty.

Sleek is good.

GOODWOLF

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:29 AM

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

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

See how that works?

GOODWOLF

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:51 AM

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

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

I seriously don't know where to start on this. Let's start with the natural disasters. I live in FL, hurricane alley, baby. Every storm season I make sure that I have the necessary basic supplies in case we get hit. I have a propane cooker, canned food, pasta and about 30 gallons worth of water storage. Mosquito repellent, toilet paper, hell even got some kool aid, tea and sugar laid up. When/if we get hit, the only thing I need for the government to do is restore basic utilities. Anybody worth their weight in dog poo can do this if they're not too busy watching American Idol. But most will cry and wait for Big Daddy Government to come in, kiss their knees and make it all better. (See New Orleans, Katrina) Worse, they will most likely look at me, with my food and all, and call me stingy if I refuse to share with them. And I'm the bad guy if I point out that lack of preparation on their part does not justify an emergency on my part. If I have the food/resources, of course I'd share. But the cold hard fact is me and mine get first dibs, everybody else gets what I feel like giving them. But for someone to expect me to simply because I have more than they do... no. Freedom assumes that you will take some basic responsibilities on as well.

And if anybody wonders, yeah, I've done this before. I lived in Ocala in '04 when we had three hurricanes all pass by or through within two weeks. My family and I were without power for a week and we made it just fine without any Government assistance other than them getting the basic utilities back up and running.

So to sum up, I'll take a less intrusive, less restrictive government, even if it means losing some "services" simply because I don't need them to supply those services. I can do that on my own.

That's the libertarian way.

GOODWOLF

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Booksword:

Purple..is slimming.

Yeah, but brown hides the dust stains better.

RALLEM

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:58 AM

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

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

See how that works?

You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

GOODWOLF

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:03 AM

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

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

RALLEM

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:27 AM

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

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

Both sides could be right in their perspectives, and the winner is the one side with the perseverance to outlast the other. I think if Britain were able to afford sending troops to America during the Revolutionary War, we would all be proud British Citizens right now.

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:47 AM

mycroft: There's a king of Londinium, apparently, though I suspect the role is largely ceremonial. :)

GOODWOLF

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:

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

May have been on the losin' side, still not convinced it was the wrong one. Sound familiar?

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

Ah, if a frog had wings... and I call BS that both sides can be right in their perspectives. That's like saying that Israel and Palestine can both be right in their perspectives. Or the IRA and Britain. Or the North vs the South in the American Civil War. Or any two mortal foes you want to pick out. When looked on from the outside, one tends to find reason to support one over the other.

Regardless of how far we've come from what the Framers intended, they went to war for what they saw as valid reasons. Namely that we should not be taxed unjustly and without representation. In other words, that we weren't a slave colony whose only existence was to send raw goods and materials to an increasingly unsustainable Empire.

So with some serious attitude and help from France late in the fourth quarter, here we are.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:29 AM

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

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

RALLEM

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

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

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

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

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RALLEM

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the questions still remain, could the settlers have settled on these Moons & planets if the Alliance hadn't spent its resources to terra form them, and does the Alliance have the right to expect some returns on those investments?

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:08 PM

No one has a RIGHT to a return on an investment. An investment is a risk.

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

RALLEM

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:06 PM

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

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

I think to the Alliance a risk on their investment is if a world's terra forming doesn't take. If the Settlers get frisky they have a military to take care of that. I bet the Settlers had to sign some sort of contract stating their servitude or citizenship.

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

DEATHBYSTUPIDITY

Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:48 AM

Folk is folk. Remember that line?
People are people, and to illustrate my point, I served in Iraq. I fought for my country. I love my country to the very ends of my fiber. Will i die for it? Yes. Will I die for Obama? No. Why? I don't support him. He is a person, a person I don't agree with.

There were plenty of people in the civil war (General Lee for example) who fought against the north simply because his state decided to leave, and he felt he owed more to that state than he did to the country.

And whether you believe it or not, every war may be different... but every war is the same in one way. There are always people who are broken after the war ends, on either side, and those broken people will always try to find their own path afterwards. Mal and Zoe are a good example of 'just trying to get on with our lives.'

I know way too many former servicemen and women who don't know what to do with themselves afterwards. I know a few who even went BACK to the military after like 3 or 4 years... only to realize they didn't even fit in there anymore.

When you experience a situation like that... you are forever changed. You see things in a different way. Politics, money, power... doesn't mean what it did before, and you may not want to ever deal with it again.

*****************

Enough of that.
Now, I'm also into the role-playing aspect of Serenity, and there was one of the creators of the Serenity Role playing book had a very.. very awesome theory.

The question presented to him was "I want a story that would be as earth shattering as the miranda story was, so that my role players will be all 'OMG!'"

His answer was just a simple report, made by an obscure gentleman which suggested that the alliance government was basically.. overdrawn. By a considerable amount. Now although that seems retarded, if you think about it, if the corporations and the like came to realize this.. thousands upon thousands of businesses would go bankrupt. The alliance would collapse in a big heap of smouldering debt.

And if you think, well this is just one guy's story.. think of it this way.

As canon, Joss already has agreed on two other aspects. One, the alliance needed the outer planets to stay with them, because most of the core worlds, are already low on resources. And need the outer planets, to fuel them. Is this wrong? No. But, they are demanding. They don't want to to compromise, or suggest trade routes - they just want those precious resources.

The second bit, is this. In a year or so, a small acting company will be releasing a film, that as far as I know, Joss whedon not only said yes to, but.. is also considering canon. It's about after the miranda report was released to the verse... and the potential SECOND civil war that happens because of it.

Find the movie, Browncoats: Redemption here - http://browncoatsmovie.com/

So in the end, we can count on a few things.
1) the alliance is hurting for resources.
2) One government trying to govern hundreds of planets with weeks and sometimes months between systems.
3) The tv show, movie, was never about politics. it was about people. People in extraordinary circumstances.

So no. Its not wrong to be a purple belly, as the ideals are good. Ideals can stand for centuries but eventually they get tainted by people.

GOODWOLF

Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:

I think to the Alliance a risk on their investment is if a world's terra forming doesn't take. If the Settlers get frisky they have a military to take care of that. I bet the Settlers had to sign some sort of contract stating their servitude or citizenship.

Well... maybe. But it's more speculation than is strictly necessary, although not without historical precedence.

As was pointed out previously, it was called the Unification War, not the Pacification War, which one could expect if the Alliance had been subjigating unruly colonies. I'm not sure how canon it was, but I do seem to remember reading something along the lines that the Central Planets pretty much preemptively sought to bring "peace and enlightenment" to the outer worlds.

Not unlike Imperial Rome. I'm sure that they thought they were doing the right thing, and I say that in all seriousness and without sarcasm. But sometimes it's just best to let folk go their own way and do as they will.

BOOKSWORD

Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:00 AM

That's the thing isn't it.

The Outer Rim wanted to govern themselves. Why would'nt they want that. However the Alliance wanted to bring one order.

The fact of the matter is I view the Unification war as needed to keep that order. Can you imagine if each and every Colony out there decided to govern themselves.

All those worlds with their own rules and goverment.

Anarky.

As I stated before it would be a matter of time before war, domination. World A with more ships decides that that World B should provide them supplies and crop.

They have the strength so they have the right.

World C can't stand World D and their ways. Just rubs them wrong. They have the means so they should just wipe them out.

If the Browncoats won the war what would they have won.

The right to turn on themselves. We would like to think their better nature would win out but as in Safe and Out of Gas the outer Rim is not filled to the brim with lovable saints and good down to earth people.

The Alliance are facist, the Alliance dominate others. The Alliannce are idiots that decide to use PAX as a weopen to enforce peace.

But are they the lesser of two evils.

I tend to think so.

DEATHBYSTUPIDITY

Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:01 PM

Sword, you don't KNOW that though. And the way they behaved, without so much as ever co-operating before in their existance, the 'colonies' lasted 5 whole years before they were defeated. Sure it was probably like the confederacy of the American civil war - where a few regiments wouldn't leave their state because they thought they would just keep the union from entering there and that was it.

They lost because they weren't wholey unified.

The alliance didn't use pax as a weapon. They were experimenting. Because a few people with IN the alliance, wanted to make people better.

There were probably people in the independence too who thought the same thing could be done.

There are two ideollogies here, Independence, and Unification. A loose confederacy would not mean A can attack B and so on. Because if A attacked B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and M (J and K were too busy making illegal fight club suggestions at the time) would come over, and kick A's ass.

THAT is the idea behind the UN, NATO, The allies, the Axis, any great 'alliance'.

The Alliance didn't want there to be another superpower. Didn't want to have to compete. Thats what it looked like was going to happen the way the Independent planets were behaving before the war. It looked like, maybe, just maybe, in a few dozen years... they would form an alliance of their own.

And that would not be pleasent for the folk in the Alliance top brass. That would mean, less taxes rolling in. Having to compete for fuel, ship yards, everything else they've been taking advantage of for decades.. ESPECIALLY.. land.

As a whole, the entire core barely makes up a 1/5th of the planets according that recently canon map and information resource released recently.

On a tactical stand point, they fought when they did, because the Alliance needed to stop the 'disease' before it grew out of control, and formed it's own soverign nations.

BOOKSWORD

Sunday, June 14, 2009 12:36 PM

I get why the Alliance did why they did.

I tend to think its better they did.

I really don't think that the Independents would have formed one central goverment like the Alliance because of who they where.

They tended to want to think for themselves as free thinkers should be able to do.

However all those voices and opinions disagreeing on how things are run.

Makes me think of a small Island with a lot of tribes.

Doesn't end well.

DEATHBYSTUPIDITY

Sunday, June 14, 2009 5:52 PM

The United states of America, did not start off as the United States. It started off as a Confederacy. A loosely bound group.

Even now, though there is one big president and stuff like that - there are still state elected governors. And, most states hold in their constitution, the right to succeed from the 'union' at any time or place. For example, Arizona does.

The way things were progressing, is that with a unified enemy, the alliance, it would pave a way from more unified actions. Such as a loose agreement between planets to keep from blowing each other out of space. Probably upheld by a council or some such.

As for the analogy of the many different tribes on an island, hate to break it to you but thats exactly what the alliance did. Only China and America remain. Everyone else just kind of succumbed to them.

Some of the stories from the Serenity RPG include one with the lost arks of cibolla, meaning the spanish government had also released several arks and they were destroyed BY the Alliance.. technically.

Then again, speculation and heresay.

The whole thing is, the independence didn't win. The Alliance did. But now that they goofed and the Miranda incident was exposed a NEW independent movement would be bound to spring up (some speculate Whitefall as the beginning) and this time, even more unified. And after it's incredible losses and probably loss of major support thanks to the Miranda files, yeah. The Alliance would probably give way to some other sort of group.

Because, really, thats human nature. Survival. And surviving usually means pooling resources. Thats how the states got founded in the first place. It was nothing but a rabble assortment of colonies, then unified... they ended up getting their independence, together.

BOOKSWORD

Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:41 PM

I really don't see Miranda inspiring a new Independent movement.

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

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

Still, now the Alliance will be affected. Too long those in the Core worlds have been a little too arrogant a little too pridefull.

Now they are going to have to open their eyes up and learn that they are not better or perfect. That the outerworlds are not the only flawed and savage beings out there.

I get your aguements but tend to disagree with them.

Doesn't make em wrong.

Or right.

Which is the fun part of discussions.

GOODWOLF

Sunday, June 14, 2009 11:12 PM

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

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

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

I think it might, heavy on the might. Remember, th war has only been over around 6 or so years. Lots of bad blood still about I'd imagine. Would be pretty easy to kick up a fuss.

And given that the Alliance were arrogant, they might not have been all that quick to improve the outer worlds, so people might not have seen enough of a change to quietly accept the yoke of the very same people who created their worst nightmares.

But it's all speculative at this point.

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:36 AM

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

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

It takes all types.

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

DEATHBYSTUPIDITY

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:09 PM

Ok, for one, there isn't just a bit of 'bad blood' ok, theres probably alot of it. Hera is miffed. Some of the other canon bits made from the RPG made it sound that Shadow had been utterly destroyed by bombardment, not to mention the planet of Athens, an Alliance friendly world occupied by the Independents, had it's cities bombed to oblivion.

Miranda, wasn't their only mistake. It was just one of their bigger ones.

And the bad blood bit, thats not going to go away after 6 years. Sheez.. my grandparents on my mother's side still go on and on and on about how the confederacy should've won the civil war.. that was over 150 years ago! And there are sooooo many people who would foolishly go up in arms for something like that. No it will never happen, because the Union's most attrocious war crimes, aren't really all that well known.

You can plug your ears and yell out "la-la-la-la not listening" all you want, but.. it's very possible that within the next couple of years in the serenity verse, if there hasen't already been.. a new rebellion would start up.

Not saying they were wrong. Trying to better a populace is something mankind loves to try... but jeez they could've at least had fliers and a sign up sheet.. perhaps a "if you let us test on you, you get free land" sorta thing...

------
But I digress. My point is.. people hold grudges for a very long time, and I'm not sure what firefly you've been watching but I can tell that Mal hates the alliance (I think that bit about shadow being bombed to hell just never came to light. He only once talked about where he was from to Saffron, and so therefore it's quite possible Joss had it set up from the beginning.) in the script that didn't have an episode made out of it.. (it was scripted, just never filmed) He show's his normal sarcastic and not caring bits towards the alliance.. but when it comes down to it.. He passively aggressively hates the alliance (showing up on U-day at an alliance friendly bar... every U-day for the past 6 years... thats a bit passive aggressive.)

So anyway, in conclusion.
People can hold grudges for centuries. (look at how the french hated the british, and vice versa, if you need another example)
And Mal is a bitter malcontent.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:27 PM

It's human nature to want to control stuff. The Alliance sounds like it started out just fine, but later needed to control unruly moons for it's very survival. Laws & regulations probably got revisited in order to legally gain that control. Then the guns came out.
I think the Alliance just needs a major house cleaning... peeps who were for using Operatives & chemicals to weed out aggression (read: dissent) need to go, then it could get to work mending fences, IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

QUANDOM

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:16 PM

I beleive Wheedon accurately protrays the chaos attendent upon a victory for Unity in the 'Verse.
Consider -

The American Civil War saved the Union.
Even many ex-Confederates, notably E. Porter Alexander, stated subsequent to the conflict that it was fottunate the South did not acheive its political goals.
But, consider all the evils that followed:

Total bankruptcy of one third the nation.

Moral corrrosion at all levels of governemnt, cumlminating in Grant's notoriously corrupt presidency.

Emigation of the losers to the West, injecting lawlessness and disorder on a wide scale.

Rise of large national business enterprises who frequently bought legislators.

Nascent labor Unions crushed by Federal troops, combined and the use of Chinese contract indentured labor as strikebreakers.

It took decades to recover from the side-effects of the War to Save the Union.

Still, I suggest that the country and the world is better off, on the margin, that we have a United States of America. We need to remember what it costs.

KRELLEK

Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:11 PM

I kinda find that hard to believe, like in the way the lawman in Serenity(episode 1)spoke to Simon about River as if she was a piece of property(the scene where he holds decidedly ill River as a human shield)or something like that, he seemed to be completely either unaware of what they did to River, or did not care, and only wanted the bounty.

and maybe there have been people in the alliance at the start or before the war that honestly wanted to help the rim worlds get better(continue the terraformation under safer work conditions), but more greedy, selfish elitist seems to have taken over

KRELLEK

Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:11 PM

I kinda find that hard to believe, like in the way the lawman in Serenity(episode 1)spoke to Simon about River as if she was a piece of property(the scene where he holds decidedly ill River as a human shield)or something like that, he seemed to be completely either unaware of what they did to River, or did not care, and only wanted the bounty.

and maybe there have been people in the alliance at the start or before the war that honestly wanted to help the rim worlds get better(continue the terraformation under safer work conditions), but more greedy, selfish elitist seems to have taken over

KRELLEK

Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:41 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

宁静

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

MYCROFTXXX

Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:11 PM

Today that very well may be true for most navies of the world but I'd hazard to guess that it is not as universal as may think. Looking back over centuries I doubt an English privateer would assist a Spanish galleon in distress but would, instead, take the opportunity to "relieve" the captain of his command, his crew of their freedom and any booty they could lay their hands on.

--

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

宁静

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 28, 2010 1:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by KrelleK:

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

I bet you'll find endless numbers of navy ships that have refused to help a single casualty that looks like he got himself hurt. How many people were left behind in the pull out from Saigon.

The main thing about that episode was to show Book was special to the Alliance, and my opinion that is it was an example of cludgeony story telling.

In Serenity the "evil" alliance lets the fugitives go so they can save the shipwreck.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.