Evil Firefly Haters
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 07:06
VIEWED: 55435
PAGE 2 of 2
I'm aware that I may be inviting flames here 
, but I think a few of you are being a little disingenuous to claim that you saw no parallels at all between the crew of Serenity and the Confederates. I'm a UK Firefly fan who knows bugger all about American history, and even I spotted a potential analogy. Nevertheless...
Originally posted by wz:
Quote:
You can keep saying that, but (at least according to the interviews I've seen) Joss Whedon himself wouldn't agree with you. He stated several times that he based his show on the Civil War and Reconstruction. You can interpret Firefly any way you want, but that doesn't change what Joss Whedon said about it.
No, it doesn't, but saintproverbius' original point holds, IMHO. Simply because Firefly draws inspiration from that particular period of history doesn't make it a pound-for-pound analogy. Ultimately, Whedon wasn't writing a historical TV show; he was writing an SF show that evoked certain themes from history.
You can compare the crew of Serenity to the Confederates (although not all of them - Inara directly states in one ep that she was pro-unification, for example), but it's clear that they're operating in a very different environment and are motivated by different concerns to their historical counterparts. Mal and Zoe were fighting against unification, yes - but there's nothing in the show to hint that slavery, or an issue of similar magnitude, was a point of contention or even a part of the rhetoric. Immediately, then, it's obvious that the parallels are far from exact
What makes the whole thing interesting, indeed, is to see a superficially similar framework placed in a different context.
Posted by WZ:
Quote:
I wasn't directly comparing anything in Firefly to the actual Jesse James. I was comparing the show's depiction of Mal to the myths surrounding people like Jesse James, which depict them as altruistic and kind, when they were actually dangerous psychopaths who rarely, if ever, stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Robin Hood probably never existed. I was saying that Mal and his crew are an extension of this mythology - albeit not based directly on any real person. You could say that since they are fictional my comparison is meaningless, but since Joss Whedon publicly stated several times that he was basing his show on Reconstruction era ex-Confederate outlaws - like Jesse James - I would argue that it is valid.
Valid, perhaps, but whatever Jesse James may have been, Mal and his crew aren't "dangerous psycopaths" (well, except maybe Jayne). They aren't saints, either. Indeed, there's no sign that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, whether as an image or as an actual practice, plays any major part in their activities or the way they're perceived.
I suppose the closest direct statement on this matter comes the episode 'Jaynestown'. This examines how Jayne has become a folk hero in one town, due to the misinterpretation of his criminality. Granted, the ep ends with Jayne making things a little better, but it makes no attempt to hide the fact that Jayne is a bastard of questionable morals. There's a direct engagement, here, with the very false mythologising of outlaws that you (rightly) object to. If Whedon is presenting his crew as Jesse James, he's portraying a complexity there that your argument doesn't allow for, I think.
Posted by WZ:
Quote:
However, if people are going to continue to deny that the Confederacy was a white supremacist movement and wear Confederate battle flags and fly them from their houses, some - not all, mind you - of them must be buying into the whole deal, not just the mythic, self-reliant everyman part of it, and that's what I object to, and what leads to events like the one I mentioned.
True. But then, it's always possible to find someone to distort any perfectly reasonable (or less so) ideology. I don't for one minute imagine that every single person on Mal's side in the war were noble, self-reliant everymen/women. Naturally there
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by NicolaClarke:
You can compare the crew of Serenity to the Confederates (although not all of them - Inara directly states in one ep that she was pro-unification, for example), but it's clear that they're operating in a very different environment and are motivated by different concerns to their historical counterparts. Mal and Zoe were fighting against unification, yes - but there's nothing in the show to hint that slavery, or an issue of similar magnitude, was a point of contention or even a part of the rhetoric. Immediately, then, it's obvious that the parallels are far from exact
True, but sci-fi and fantasty writers have always used their medium as a way to make comments about contemporary issues - in other words using a future (or past) time and place as a smokescreen which allows them to sneak controversial statements past editors, censors, TV executives, etc. Inexact parallels (or better yet, subtle connections) only help them in this strategy. (I know - the Civil War as a contemporary issue? Well look at the fights over flying Confederate flags over state houses. Remember the Civil Rights movement, when African-Americans had to fight to get the rights they were promised after the Civil War? That was only forty years ago. How about all the militia groups who believe the Confederacy was right and are armed and training for war?) Some examples of sci-fi or fantasy used this way are Fahrenheit 451, 1984, or even some Star Trek episodes (though these were usually the worst ones - like the one with the half-black/half-white guys). Rod Serling created The Twilight Zone essentially so he could say whatever he wanted about politics, etc. without interference from the network. Certainly the parallels were also far from exact between Communist Russia and 1984 (or better yet, Animal Farm) but no one can really deny what the author was talking about. It's not sci-fi, but would you say that The Crucible has nothing to do with the McCarthy hearings just because the parallels aren't exact (certainly much less exact than Firefly and the Civil War)?
You make a good point about there being no apparent connection between slavery and the War of Unification, but it should be noted that pro-Confederates ever since 1865 having been saying the same thing about the American Civil War, i.e. that it was not about slavery, but the freedom of the individual states - much like the autonomy the independents in Firefly wanted for their planets. There's a parallel if you're looking for one - that's actually a perfect example of how Firefly put forth the Confederate version of U.S. history.
Also note that Joss Whedon in his descriptions of the show always referenced the Civil War and slavery, but also insisted that his show would have no alien races in it. I'm not suggesting anything by this except what he said - that he believes humans are the only sentient beings in the universe, and that he wanted his show to be different from other sci-fi shows, but you have to admit it's interesting that a man who wanted to make a show inspired by the Civil War removed race from it both as a physical presence and as an issue. Yes, I know he had an interracial couple on the show, but my point is, a lot of sci-fi writers would have welcomed the inclusion of alien races so that they could make some statements about racism in a metaphorical way. Instead Joss Whedon excluded alien races from his Civil War/Reconstruction allegory altogether, just as Confederacy buffs exclude race from the actual history.
Posted by WZ:
Quote:
However, if people are going to continue to deny that the Confederacy was a white supremacist movement and wear Confederate battle flags and fly them from their houses, some - not all, mind you - of them must be buying into the whole deal, not just the mythic, self-reliant everyman part of it, and that's what I object to, and what leads to events like the one I mentioned.
Posted by Nicola Cl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WZ wrote:
Quote:
True, but sci-fi and fantasty writers have always used their medium as a way to make comments about contemporary issues - in other words using a future (or past) time and place as a smokescreen which allows them to sneak controversial statements past editors, censors, TV executives, etc. Inexact parallels (or better yet, subtle connections) only help them in this strategy. (I know - the Civil War as a contemporary issue? Well look at the fights over flying Confederate flags over state houses. Remember the Civil Rights movement, when African-Americans had to fight to get the rights they were promised after the Civil War? That was only forty years ago. How about all the militia groups who believe the Confederacy was right and are armed and training for war?) Some examples of sci-fi or fantasy used this way are Fahrenheit 451, 1984, or even some Star Trek episodes (though these were usually the worst ones - like the one with the half-black/half-white guys). Rod Serling created The Twilight Zone essentially so he could say whatever he wanted about politics, etc. without interference from the network. Certainly the parallels were also far from exact between Communist Russia and 1984 (or better yet, Animal Farm) but no one can really deny what the author was talking about. It's not sci-fi, but would you say that The Crucible has nothing to do with the McCarthy hearings just because the parallels aren't exact (certainly much less exact than Firefly and the Civil War)?
Wow. Where to start w/ that one.....?
I agree that authors use their stories to openly air their views or opinions of subjects, politics, or history, but are you certain that is Mr Whedon's motivation w/ Firefly? If so, please state your evidence. Perhaps he just used the Reconstruction period as a template for his story, free of any personal feelings or prejudices.
Sure there are correlations between Firefly & the aftermath of the War, but that does not prove any conspiracy by Joss, cast, or staff to overthrow the current government and instate a modern day Confederacy.
The problem w/ conspiracy theories is that anyone can come up w/ one if they look hard enough at anything. Look at the current shouts of racisim that were on MSN the other day. A group is trying to claim Lord of the Rings is racist because the side of good are all white, and the side of evil (orcs, goblins, etc) are all "dark skinned" races. They went so far as to say that the forces of Sauron riding war elephants is a direct reference to "Africa" and its people. Utterly ridiculous, and very much bordering on paranoia if you ask me.
As for the controversy over the Confederate flags flying over capitol buildings, I would agree that there is no place for them over government buildings, but I disagree w/ the efforts to totally do away w/ them and of many be so intolerant of them in other areas. There are many Confederate gravesites and monuments where those flags do belong, and should remain. If they offend some people, they are free not to visit those sites.
As far as Civil Rights groups having to fight for the rights given to African Americans after the War, you can split that blame between the Northern states and the government in Washington DC as much as any Southern state. For one hundred years, the federal government did nothing to get those rights instated. I believe that same federal government also failed to deliver on the fourty acres & a mule that they promised to slaves.
I could point & counterpoint about the War of Northern Aggression and the real reasons the Confederacy (and my ancestors who owned noslaves) fought, but there is no need to hash that here and burn up bandwidth. If you feel the need to debate me on it, I invite you to email me @ browncoat1@yahoo.com.
Quote:
You make a good point about there being no apparent connection between slavery and the War of Unification, but it should be noted that pro-Confederates ever since 1865 having been saying the same thinNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Darn double posts.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey, then we miss out on all the fun.
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I welcome your rebuttal, but would ask that if it is lengthy to email me @ browncoat1@yahoo.com so as not to inconvenience our fellow board members with lengthy posts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am really glad to see this discussion because the issues Willie (if I can call you by your first name) identified bothered me from the first time I saw the show. I do love firefly, think it should never have been cancelled, and am looking forward to the movie, tho. Also Willie I am finishing a Ph D in US History, and can't help myself: run, run from grad school before it's too late!
What's at stake here is a lot more fundamental than whether or not the Independents are a strict analogue for the Confederacy, and for me the increasingly detailed arguments about the validity of this point are moot. Joss said what he said, the question is what it means. For me what this brings up is this: is it possible to separate American ideals of freedom from the context in which they were created? Can we believe Jefferson writing "all men are created equal" in the Declaration, while not only owning slaves but also arguing for black inferiority in "Notes on Virginia," to give one example? My answer is a big ol' NO.
The most recent article Willie linked is on point here. It would have been really nice if Joss had wanted to actually grapple with race and freedom, because I think he's the shiz, but that apparently wasn't what interested him, and like many white leftists he found it more convenient to ignore this aspect of the history he found so interesting. I still think Firefly is a great show and hope we get to see more of it, tho.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Argh! Also wanted to respond to browncoat.
I think you are conflating two separate issues. If you look at a)the debates in Southern state legislatures after the initial wave of secessions in 1861, or b)pronouncements of the political leaders of the Confederacy during the war, you will find that, for those folks the war was precisely about the freedom to continue enslaving African-Americans. That is to say, the political class of the Confederacy was not just proslavery but believed slavery to be the one and only reason for secession.
The question of why white southerners (something on the order of 2/3 of the white male population between the ages of 20 and 45 or something) fought in the war is of course a very different one. Not doubt many joined for the reasons you claim your ancestors did, browncoat, because they believed their country was being invaded by an essentially foreign army.
I also think it is likely that many heads of households who didn't own slaves had a reasonable aspiration of slave ownership, and that owning slaves and farming commercial products like tobacco, rice, and cotton represented what little upward mobility existed in the antebellum south, esp. in the context of the 1850s cotton boom. James Oakes notes, for example, that while the majority of slaves lived and died on large plantations, the majority of slaveholders owned one or two slaves.
To be perfectly clear, I do respect your opinion browncoat and am in no way trying to impugn you or your family. I am trying to suggest that one has to grapple with the contradictory legacy of the civil war as fully as possible; and to claim that symbols of the Confederacy can be somehow divorced from the institution of slavery is an argument that doesn't hold historical water for me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There seems to be a notion that if Joss takes the Reconstruction as a template for his SF series, he is beholden to every issue in it. Yes, slavery weighs heavily when you start talking Civil War, but Joss did not make slavery an issue of the Unification War. And he wasn't obligated to. Does his portrayal of Book have to address the recent rash of publicity about "celibate" Catholic priests molesting children? Of course not.
The obvious distaste for slavery shown by Mal, who is on the side analogous to the Confederates, was enough of a nod to that question, a simple statement from Joss, for the truly stupid, that yes, he doesn't favor slavery. And the Alliance/Blue Sun disregard for River's basic human rights further, if anyone NEEDS it, distances the Alliance side from any image as Noble Northerners Fighting Only to End Slavery.
So the point should be moot. Joss has not created a pro-slavery show, nor even a show in which slavery is an issue.
And since the North is considered the Good Guys on the issue of slavery in the Civil War, where are the reactionary paranoiacs complaining that Joss is effectively making the North, thus the U.S. Gov't., out to be evil, totalitarian hat fetishists? Which is an argument (maybe minus the hats) used by some of our foes these days ... thus meaning that Joss is pro-Al Quaeda! A-HA!
'Cause that argument is just as empty, but less emotionally overcharged, than the idea that his desire to tell the tale of a wounded idealist who fought totalitarianism and lost is somehow a big wet kiss to the slavery of Africans and African Americans.
Once he set up that idea of Mal losing a war, looking at the Reconstruction to help him flesh out what the aftermath of such a conflict might look like was simply good logic, and it tied in with his Western styling of the show.
There just ain't nothin' else to it. Why is no one blasting Star Trek's Romulans, clunkily styled after the Roman Empire, for being a tacit blessing of that empire's slavery, conquest and feeding-of-Christians-to-lions?
Can we now move onto the next thread, the one where because Joss created a romanticized concept of courtesan-geisha prostitution, he's also in favor of street-corner crack whores and the subjugation and objectification of women in general? Joss is clearly in favor of overdressed street pimps beating up and emotionally abusing/manipulating hookers and keeping them essentially in slavery. He is a bad man, and we must not watch his insidious shows.
Or maybe a thred in which, because he theorized our Earth getting "used up," Joss is either opposed to ecological conservation, or a fatalist convinced that recycling can't help and we should all just litter the countryside with styrofoam packing "peanuts"? Sic the Sierra Club and Greenpeace on his Hollywood ass!
"Bang."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The Internet has given everyone in America a voice, and apparently everyone in America has chosen to use that voice to b*tch about movies."
--Kevin Smith
It's fiction. If you like it, enjoy it. If you don't like it, ignore it. But if you over-analyze it, you'll almost certainly kill it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Spike-u:
I don't think any of the things you wrote. I take Joss to be a committed leftist whose admirable goal is producing gripping entertainment in accord with his political beliefs.
I do think that it is important and fun to discuss the kinds of choices that artists we like make; what the choices are, what kind of effects they have on their work, what might have happened if they made different choices, etc. I was interested in this thread precisely because I had seen little discussion of an issue which occurred to me early on in watching the show.
To reiterate the point I was trying to make: while I love the show, I think it is unfortunate that it follows a broad and long-lasting cultural trend in which people believe (falsely, as I wrote) that one discuss the nature of freedom as it was fought over during the Civil War/Reconstruction (and one of the issues this thread has settled is that this is precisely what inspired Joss about the show) and not grapple with race and slavery. The fact, for example, that our nation has a museum in D.C. dedicated to the Holocaust--a crime committed certainly with the knowledge of our political leaders but not their complicity--but nothing which mentions slavery--a longer-lasting institution built into the very fabric of our society and politics--is another example of how we as a society continue to think we can exalt our committment to freedom while we elide the crimes we have committed in its name. In this sense I agree with Willie Zaza and think he raised an important question.
But I think my final point is different than his, to wit: Wouldn't it be nice, I wrote, if an artist so gifted and politically committed as Joss is chose to use ff to go after precisely this subject instead of drawing on the social context it created and yet ignoring it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It would be neat if Joss & Co. could tackle an institution that's been around as long as there have been people. But they can't solve the problems of the past.
They can expand on it, show people a theme, and help them come to their own conclusions. Allegory is a more powerful tool than a museum. It is much more insidious.
Firefly is about freedom or its lack.
I have examples for just about every member of the crew, but I'll use the biggest one; Inara.
Inara sells herself into indentured servitude with every transaction. She willingly lets go of her freedoms for money. She sells herself.
Yep, she gets the money. Yep, she picks who she will and will not sell herself to. Yep, she has respect, because her profession is integrated into society. She is also shown a profound lack of respect, because she can be bought. Her clients all see her as a commodity.
That's what Mal hates about her job. And it's what he hates about himself. He sells his self-respect each and every time he commits a crime. Part of his choices come from getting back at the evil central governement. Part of it is because he's desperate to keep the little freedom he has left.
Firefly is about allegorical slavery - in addition to all of the examples of indentured servitude we've seen. That's not a copout on Joss' part. Dramatically, it's better than a preachy over-the-top "slavery is bad" bill board.
It's harder to see, so it's harder to ignore.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by browncoat:
I welcome your rebuttal, but would ask that if it is lengthy to email me @ browncoat1@yahoo.com so as not to inconvenience our fellow board members with lengthy posts.
This post won't take long, partly because I've been spending too much time posting on this site and because I think Lordj answered your post better than I could.
First off, I want to say thanks for keeping the debate civil. There was one thing in your post I wanted to refer to:
Quote:
The problem here is the period and frame of reference. Slavery was introduced to the United States before it was even a country. Many slaves came to the US through New York harbor, and it was not until the 1840's that slavery was abolished in the North. The South did not have the luxury of abolishing slavery as it had come to rely on slavery as a cheap labor force to harvest agricultural goods; goods the North readily bought. It is a shame the North & South could not work together to find a solution to the problem and end slavery while not destroying the economy of the South by ending slavery w/ no system in place to fill the vacuum left by the loss of labor.
Who forced the South to base their economy on a cash crop instead of a more flexible, diversified, industrial/agrarian economy like the North and Northwest had? Didn't the South (or at least, important Southern leaders like James Hammond) insist that an agrarian economy, based on Slavery, was the basis of the ideal society? They chose to become dependent on cotton (and slavery) because it was highly lucrative and suited their ideas of civilized culture. New England made tons of money on the triangular trade (molasses to rum to slaves) but they also lead the abolitionist movement, so you can't argue that economics forced anyone into doing anything.
The South also had plenty to do with ruining their own ecomony. The war and the end of slavery did not necessarily mean the end of exports of cotton, but Southern leaders during the war decided to cut off supplies of cotton to England, believing this would help to force that country - which had a hugely important textile industry - to enter the war on their side. Apparently it never occurred to them that England controlled one-sixth of the planet at that time and could easily find other places (India and Egypt) to grow their own cotton. Consequently, after the war the South's monopoly on cotton was gone forever - by their own doing. Even without all that, basing their whole economy on a single cash crop was a bad idea in the first place.
It is a shame that the North and South did not work to together to end slavery while maintaining the southern economy, but since the South did not want to end slavery, I don't see how this could have happened. Southern leaders wanted slavery to expand into former Mexican territory and even to Cuba and further into Central and South America if possible. Most of the filibusters like William Walker who were trying to take over Latin American countries were southerners who hoped to expand the slave power. Northern leaders who opposed slavery, such as Lincoln (at least early on) were perfectly willing to allow it to continue where it existed, and even expand provided the number of slave and free states remained equal. They did this in the spirit of compromise (and the spirit of States' Rights-!), but the South saw it as a first move in an attempt to end slavery altogether and considered that they were being persecuted. Any spirit of compromise that might have lead to ending slavery peacefully existed, for the most part, only in the North. It takes two to tango.
Also, speaking of State's Rights, it should be noted that, in theory at least, the Dred Scot decision made slavery legal in every state when it was decided that if a southerner brought his slaves into a free state they, as property rights are inviolable, must remain slaves. So in that Supreme Court decision the South's law was forced on the rest of the country - where were St
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm finding this whole thread fascinating (see! TV *can* be good for you 
). As I said above, I'm shamefully ignorant about north American history, beyond the 1920s/30s, but after all this am duly inspired to learn more. Anyone care to recommend some introductory reading material on the Civil War and after? (I'm a neophyte on this period, but as a postgrad history student I'm accustomed to weighty tomes...). Feel free to email me: clytemnestra@inorbit.com.
I agree (again) that simply drawing upon a particular period doesn't oblige Whedon to engage with all of said period's concerns. I'd also reiterate my earlier point that we've only really seen Mal's obviously biased perspective on events. He was an extremely minor figure in what went on; he had no access to the chain of command, and probably had no concrete idea of the agendas being pursued of those above him.
Perhaps this is the point. I rather got the impression that after the battle of Serenity Vallery, the ordinary soldiers (on both sides?) were left out in the cold. The series isn't about the ones who made the postwar peace settlements; it's about those who got screwed over by events taking place (literally) over their heads. Mal is the ordinary soldier, who fought for what seemed from his perspective to be an ideal (independence/autonomy), but he had no control over its terms, its ending, or its real motivation.
Maybe the war in Firefly really *was* about independence. Maybe it was about something more sinister (preserving slavery, in the historical analogy). Either way, Mal and others like him were not responsible for anything more than their individual commitment to what it appeared to them to be. And, as has been said, Mal has given every indication of being personally opposed to slavery.
I still say it's difficult to justify castigating the entire show for a historical standpoint that there is only evidence-by-analogy it is adhering to. And what is fiction for if not to examine human attitudes in all their variety? We can admire how something is written without agreeing wholly with it.
Hmm, wittering.
Quote:
Originally posted by arrghyle:
Firefly is about freedom or its lack.
I have examples for just about every member of the crew, but I'll use the biggest one; Inara.
[snip]
That's what Mal hates about her job. And it's what he hates about himself. He sells his self-respect each and every time he commits a crime. Part of his choices come from getting back at the evil central governement. Part of it is because he's desperate to keep the little freedom he has left.
Firefly is about allegorical slavery - in addition to all of the examples of indentured servitude we've seen. That's not a copout on Joss' part. Dramatically, it's better than a preachy over-the-top "slavery is bad" bill board.
It's harder to see, so it's harder to ignore.
Anyway, I think what I've quoted above is one of the most interesting points I've seen. I'd be interested to read your interpretations of some of the other characters.
Will return to consider this further.
"No power in the 'verse can stop me."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, a couple more things...
Posted by Browncoat:
Quote:
As far as Civil Rights groups having to fight for the rights given to African Americans after the War, you can split that blame between the Northern states and the government in Washington DC as much as any Southern state. For one hundred years, the federal government did nothing to get those rights instated. I believe that same federal government also failed to deliver on the fourty acres & a mule that they promised to slaves.
Except it was the Federal Government that had to declare martial law and send in an airborne division to integrate the high school in Little Rock against the wishes of those who ran the state. While the Federal govt. did nothing for a hundred years to insure the Civil Rights of black people - a passive sin, the Southern states were actively returning them to a state little better (or even worse) than slavery by enacting unfair poll taxes and requirements that prevented them from voting, and other things, such as the sharecropping system - an active sin, which the Federal govt had to correct in the sixties. The FBI also had to go after the perpetrators of murders committed againgst southern blacks and northerners who compaigned in the south to help them get the vote when local law enforcement looked the other way or even committed such crimes themselves. You can blame the North for not enforcing Federal Law, but does that absolve the South from blame for actively undermining it? If someone murders someone and the cops don't arrest him, obviously that's terrible, but does that make the original murder OK?
The much repeated offer of "forty acres and a mule" was, I believe, (though I could be mistaken), an unofficial offer, made - as a suggestion - by a Union General, I think it was Sherman, which had no support from the government in the first place.
Quote:
I do not wear Confederate flag apparel, fly one over my house or have a bumper sticker on my car, but that does not mean I am not proud of my heritage. Rather it is to avoid conflict w/ people who have the misconception you mentioned above that the Confederacy was a "white supremacist movement", which I find a laughable statement at best. I have mentioned above that less than 6% of the population of the South owned slaves, and less than 25% of that number fought, so to say the Confederacy was some sinister supremacist movement is ridiculous.
Certainly you should be proud of your heritage, but If I were you, I would be actively distancing myself from a war that was started by rich men who callously took advantage of the patriotism of your forebears and sent them to die for an economic system they got little benefit from. I'm Italian, Irish, German, Albanian And Welsh, but I'm not going to go around making excuses for the behavior of Mafiosi, The IRA, Nazis, Albanian bandits, and Catherine Zeta-Jones's dubious choices in the marriage department. The majority you mention, among them your ancestors, didn't start the war, they just fought it (a reason to be proud), so why they fought is irrelevent to what it was about, except in terms of why those individual soldiers chose to fight - as opposed the larger political and economic reasons for the war, which is what I've been talking about. The minority of slave owners are the ones who ran the state governments (which is why for instance the non-slaveholding Virginia upcountry, who didn't want the war, seceded from the state and became West Virginia). South Carolina, whose population was over 50% slave, seceded first and fired on Fort Sumter. If you read the documents in which the Southern states stated their intention to secede, you will see that they list the protection of slavery as the reason (among others). Rich man's war, poor man's fight, as usual. Show some real respect for your ancestors and, at least symbolically, tell the plantation owners to go to hell and leave the ordinary people out of their fight.
-Willie Zaza
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's entirely amazing to me that Firefly has generated such controversy. However, that's a good thing - especially in the case of Firefly where it seems to revolve around a metaphorical characterization of history.
That's the sign of quality television, in my view. Obviously, WZ objects to the show and some points of view reflected in it. But he must have found it entertaining to have sat through several episodes - and continue to respond here.
Personally, I enjoy it greatly. A host of characters experiencing life from radically different viewpoints. Let's hope we get more stories from the Firefly universe to add fuel to the fire.
"Well, hello Mr. Fancy Pants."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
lordj wrote:
I am really glad to see this discussion because the issues Willie (if I can call you by your first name) identified bothered me from the first time I saw the show.
Thanks for your thoughts. As I am a mixed-race, product of Northern Catholic slums (when my Irish grandmother married my Italian grandfather, her father said "why couldn't you have married a white man?") I certainly will never stand on the formalities that our Southern neighbors - in their slavish aping of the manners of Perfidious Albion - insist upon. In short, feel free to call me by my first name.
Quote:
Also Willie I am finishing a Ph D in US History, and can't help myself: run, run from grad school before it's too late!
Good advice I'm sure. If only I had marketable skills instead of those of a historian I might be able to find work. Instead a "career" as a permanent student looms, death-like, on my horizon.
-WZ
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The fact, for example, that our nation has a museum in D.C. dedicated to the Holocaust--a crime committed certainly with the knowledge of our political leaders but not their complicity--but nothing which mentions slavery--a longer-lasting institution built into the very fabric of our society and politics--is another example of how we as a society continue to think we can exalt our committment to freedom while we elude the crimes we have committed in its name. In this sense I agree with Willie Zaza and think he raised an important question.
Actually there are plans to build a museum of slavery in Fredericksburg, VA - where I went to college. I think it is a National Park service project - if not that, then a project of the State of Virginia. Naturally, there is a lot of controversy about how it should be presented (and even if it should be in Fredericksburg) so there's much delay. As far as I know, not living in Fredericksburg anymore, they may have cancelled it (?). In any case there are plans to build such a museum at some point (and it's not the Civil War theme park Disney wanted to build - remember that?).
-WZ
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Evil double post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by NicolaClarke:
I agree (again) that simply drawing upon a particular period doesn't oblige Whedon to engage with all of said period's concerns.
Once again, you made a lot of good points that are hard to argue with, so I'd just like to put forth Ang Lee's film Ride With The Devil (if I have the title right) as an example of how someone can tell a story with Confederate heroes and still address the issue of slavery head on - while not having to distort (or selectively edit) history in order to justify the actions of the main characters.
Also, Jewel (Kilcher) looks good in Victorian underwear.
-Willie Zaza
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, LordJ,
Sure, your points are taken. I just noticed that at the top of the thread there was much tension and hysteria. The idea that Firefly is bad because Joss chose not to address slavery (or the historical lack of women's rights, or bias against Catholicism, or the fact that poor white folk not owning land were treated, sure, WAY better than non-whites, but not exactly as well as the landed gentry) is ludicrous.
When you say, "Wouldn't it've been nice if Joss, or someone, were to address these things," I say, hell yeah. Could make a good story. Just not the one Joss is telling. This far down this ten-mile thread, I see that everyone's very civil, more relaxed, often erudite as the devil addressing Congress, and even funny (do I not see the demonized Willie himself saying Jewel looks cute in bloomers? Go, WZ!), so I applaud the continuation of this thread, and the efforts of its participants.
I'm just glad that we can say, "Hey, Firefly raises this issue in my mind," and have a conversation, rather than dictate what constraints to put on Joss and other creators when they look for inspirations for their fictions.
Happy new year.
"Bang."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aaarghyle--
There really IS more than one way to skin a gorram cat! I really liked your analysis, it makes a lot of sense.
Spike--props.
NicolaClarke--this thread is so long already, what the heck...
Willie recommended Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution which is weighty (600p!) but fun to read, recent and comprehensive.
Also: Willie Lee Rose, Rehearsals for Reconstruction, focuses on Federal policy in the Sea Islands of GA during the CW, as a test case for some of the solutions proposed later.
Gerald Jaynes, Branches Without Roots, is an economic history of Rec. that is interesting but I found it difficult to get through.
Albion Tourgee, A Fool's Errand, is a great fictional account by a white Ohioan and CW vet who moved to North Carolina after the war and became politically active.
I also think that this Monday 1/5 or next Monday 1/12 PBS is showing the beginning of a two-part documentary about Reconstruction.
Willie--you've clearly got marketable writing skills! And send me an email at cfjsc2@eiu.edu so I can give you unsolicited advice about grad school.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LordJ wrote:
Quote:
I think you are conflating two separate issues. If you look at a)the debates in Southern state legislatures after the initial wave of secessions in 1861, or b)pronouncements of the political leaders of the Confederacy during the war, you will find that, for those folks the war was precisely about the freedom to continue enslaving African-Americans. That is to say, the political class of the Confederacy was not just proslavery but believed slavery to be the one and only reason for secession.
I have to respectfully disagree with you LordJ. Though no one can deny that slavery was an issue, I do not think it the "only reason for secession". There are other matters, listed by the states that left the union in their declarations of secession, not the least of which is the matter of state's rights to self government. The Constitution specifies that any powers not given to the central government are reserved for the states themselves. Many Southern states were afraid that Lincoln and his Federal gov't would incroach on those rights. Many of the Founding Fathers were from Virginia and other Southern States and they were strongly anti-Federalist, not wanting any central government to hold unlimited power over them for fear of a return to the type of system they suffered under English rule.
Granted, slavery and its abolishment were a concern, especially amongst rich land owners and politicians. No doubt many of these influential people put their own spin on things in order to maintain their powerbases, but could not the same be said of the North?
Lincoln is quoted in many debates and in personal writings as not truly caring if African Americans were ever freed, so long as the Union was preserved. In a 1858 debate, Lincoln said he felt the whites should always maintain a dominate role to the black man, and that he did not abdicate their voting or holding any office.
Many Northern generals held slaves, and did so until the ratification of the 13th amendment, in December of 1865, eight months after the war, that most of those men gave up their slaves. Some held on to their slaves until as late as 1868 or 1869. Grant himself kept slaves until 1868 being quoted as saying that "good help was so difficult to find" and he was loathe to see them go.
Apparently politics and men in power on both sides played the "slavery" card to their own advantage.
Quote:
The question of why white southerners (something on the order of 2/3 of the white male population between the ages of 20 and 45 or something) fought in the war is of course a very different one. Not doubt many joined for the reasons you claim your ancestors did, browncoat, because they believed their country was being invaded by an essentially foreign army.
I agree with you totally on that point. You might also add that many went off in search of glory and some grand adventure. Looking through old letters and the personal journey of one of my ancestors has yielded a feeling from some that the war would be short and that it was some great adventure and a chance to heap honor and glory on themselves and their family name.
Quote:
I also think it is likely that many heads of households who didn't own slaves had a reasonable aspiration of slave ownership, and that owning slaves and farming commercial products like tobacco, rice, and cotton represented what little upward mobility existed in the antebellum south, esp. in the context of the 1850s cotton boom. James Oakes notes, for example, that while the majority of slaves lived and died on large plantations, the majority of slaveholders owned one or two slaves.
I don't agree with your belief that "many" heads of households aspired to slave ownership. From records and receipts on display in the Museum of the Confederacy here in Richmond, VA, slaves sold at public auction for far more than any household could hope to amass in several years. I have personally seen receipts showing a total for one slave from $2500.00 to $4000.00. I am not sure what tha
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well...i'm certainly confused all of this.
the show was canceled after airing 11 shows.
what was there to hate so much?
issues that the show didn't run long enough to address?
sheesh...
ya can't make everyone happy. especially in 11 episodes.
"Take me, sir. Take me hard."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
browncoat posted:
Lincoln is quoted in many debates and in personal writings as not truly caring if African Americans were ever freed, so long as the Union was preserved. In a 1858 debate, Lincoln said he felt the whites should always maintain a dominate role to the black man, and that he did not abdicate their voting or holding any office.
I think you mean "advocate."
In the same debate he also said that slavery was a moral wrong which should be abolished. It should also be noted that his views about the equality of black and white people evolved considerably during the war.
His position of placing the Union above the abolition of slavery (abolition being something he always advocated) had more to do with what he thought were his moral and legal responsibilities as president, as well as what the constitution would allow him to do, than it did with his personal convictions. As president he had to preserve the Union (or so he felt), however as president he was also protector of the constitution, which itself protected slavery. The fact that he worked very hard to find ways to end slavery despite it's being protected (and despite the majority in the North who either opposed this or didn't care) shows what his true feelings were.
Quote:
I don't agree with your belief that "many" heads of households aspired to slave ownership. From records and receipts on display in the Museum of the Confederacy here in Richmond, VA, slaves sold at public auction for far more than any household could hope to amass in several years. I have personally seen receipts showing a total for one slave from $2500.00 to $4000.00. I am not sure what that would equate to in today's economy, but I know it was a great deal of money in the 1860's and far more than I daresay that 90% of the Southern population could spare for labor.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Aspire - To have great ambition, desire.
Your argument that southern heads of households did not aspire to own slaves because they couldn't afford it is ridiculous. What else do people aspire to than things that are presently out of their reach? If you have something, or can get it easily, there is no need to aspire to it. In any society the poorer elements will aspire to have what the rich have, whether it means cars, big TV's, or slaves. It would contrary to human nature if some non-slaveholding whites in the antebellum south did not aspire to own slaves.
Quote:
Again I have to disagree with you. I respect your opinion, and understand where you are coming from, but I think it is a matter of perception and your interpretation of history.
Louis Farrakhan himself said it best when he said that African Americans spent more years in chains beneath the flag of the United States than they ever did under the Confederate flag. The only difference is that the Union used slavery as their rallying point, and freed the slaves. How different would it have been if the Confederacy won, and freed the slaves, seeing it as an immoral institution that could no longer exist? Would they then revere the stars and bars and damn the flag of the U.S.? Food for thought, no?
Why would the Confederacy free the slaves if they won the war? The only time the Confederacy considered doing so was as a desperate, last-ditch war measure when they were running out of troops - and then they only considered freeing slaves that fought for the Confederacy. They never put this idea into practice, and the General who first suggested it, Patrick Cleburne, was admonished and kept from advancement while his idea was suppressed.
"The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the Revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong".
-Robert Toombs
In other words, if slaves make good soldiers then they would make good citizens and must be equal to whites. If this fact means the end of the revolution, then the revolution is about slavery, and more importantly, whether black and white people are tru
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"...it is pretty obnoxious to keep coming back and talking about how much I hated your show..."
No shite, Sherlock.
Jeez! I'm sure glad I have more things to do in life than post on the fanboards of shows I hate.
And there are quite a few seeing that the state of broadcast TV is quite dodgy at best.
Take me, sir. Take me hard."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WZ wrote:
Quote:
I think you mean "advocate."
Thanks so much for pointing that out. I know the difference & meant to type advocate. Not sure why it came out as abdicate.
Quote:
In the same debate he also said that slavery was a moral wrong which should be abolished. It should also be noted that his views about the equality of black and white people evolved considerably during the war.
Are there sources to cite this change of views. Everything I have read shows he backed abolishing slavery, but he was perfectly content to leave all slaves in chains if it brought the South back into the Union, he said so several times, up to and during the War.
I see no evidence of his opinion changing to think of blacks as anything more than inferior to whites. I have even seen quotes where he proposed sending blacks back to Africa as a "colony" because they would be "more comfortable" in their "native land", never mind that slaves by that point had been born here and had never seen Africa.
Quote:
His position of placing the Union above the abolition of slavery (abolition being something he always advocated) had more to do with what he thought were his moral and legal responsibilities as president, as well as what the constitution would allow him to do, than it did with his personal convictions. As president he had to preserve the Union (or so he felt), however as president he was also protector of the constitution, which itself protected slavery. The fact that he worked very hard to find ways to end slavery despite it's being protected (and despite the majority in the North who either opposed this or didn't care) shows what his true feelings were.
Odd that he could not free slaves still held in the North and in states & territories controlled by the Union. The Emancipation Proclomation did not free a single slave, save those in the Confederacy, which the Union did not control. It was nothing more than justification on paper, and specifically left in bondage slaves in border states and areas controlled by the Union. Why were they not freed if Lincoln's goal was abolishing slavery? He could have easily proposed a bill to abolish slavery in the Union. No doubt it would have carried.
Quote:
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Aspire - To have great ambition, desire.
Your argument that southern heads of households did not aspire to own slaves because they couldn't afford it is ridiculous. What else do people aspire to than things that are presently out of their reach? If you have something, or can get it easily, there is no need to aspire to it. In any society the poorer elements will aspire to have what the rich have, whether it means cars, big TV's, or slaves. It would contrary to human nature if some non-slaveholding whites in the antebellum south did not aspire to own slaves.
My arguement is ridiculous? LOL! No more so than your assumption that every Southern head of household wanted slaves.
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Assumption: : an assuming that something is true b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted
Assuming is exactly what you are doing when you assume that everyone in the South wanted slaves.
Quote:
Why would the Confederacy free the slaves if they won the war? The only time the Confederacy considered doing so was as a desperate, last-ditch war measure when they were running out of troops - and then they only considered freeing slaves that fought for the Confederacy. They never put this idea into practice, and the General who first suggested it, Patrick Cleburne, was admonished and kept from advancement while his idea was suppressed.
"The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the Revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong".
-Robert Toombs
In other words, if slaves make good soldiers then they would make good citizens and must be equal to whites. If this fact means the end of theNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"despite that fact that the war apparently had nothing to do with slavery"
I came across this when I was involved in this same debate last year. I did not want to make too much a deal about it, because even if my opponent was right on this point of fact, I felt the substance of his argument was wrong, and could be dealt with that way. Unfortunately, since then I found the Declaration of Secession of most of the Confederate states. One site that has some of them is here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm
South Carolina is complaining because other states in the Union are not living up to their Article 4 (NOT Amendment 4) obligations. It is South Carolina's first complaint after wading through the boilerplate history.
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
In short, slaves were escaping to the North, and Northerners were not sending them back. The state governments appeared to be in collusion, and the federal government was either unable, or unwilling to stop the escaping slaves, nor force the return of any escaped slaves from the North.
The war was about slavery. That is why South Carolina, and the southern states seceeded from the Union. That is the first reason South Carolina gives for leaving the Union. Because the other states were supporting escaping slaves. The Confederacy's own declarations declare this point.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
One of the Civil War experts from FFF could maybe contact the guy, or maybe it's best to ignore him.
www.ratsalad.com - It's right on the home page, and has been since July:
Help prevent Firefly: The Motion Picture
Dear God in Heaven!
I am an American Civil War buff but it would seem that the website is no longer up. So I can't drop him a line on how stupid he is.
From what I read though, he sounds like an idiot who was taking his anger out on something that he thought couldn't bit back.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, the Civil War itself wasn't fought over slavery. That wasn't until later. It was mainly because that the South believed that the Federal Government was trampling their state's rights, one of them being the right to own slaves but there were many others as well, and the war was originally fought over the legality of the South seceding. The North said they couldn't legally secede and the South said they could and then the South fired on Fort Sumter after Lincoln said he would not surrender the fort thus beginning the Civil War. It wasn't until 1863 that the war really called in slavery when Lincoln issued the Emacipation Proclamation but remember that only freed states in rebellion. Slaves in the border states or neutral states did not have to give up slavery until after the end of the Civil War. Most Federal soldiers fought the war for the Union and not the freeing of slaves.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No sense trying to make sense Rklenseth, people will believe what they want, and what they read in history books, and there is no convincing them otherwise.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know what's really cool about Firefly? All of it's fans are in a higher intelegence bracket then the majority of TV watchers, like this derganged guy.
First off, if he doesn't want to go spend $7 to go see the movie, then he doesn't have to. Were not forcing him. So shut up about it.
Secondly, the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. The south origonaly seperated from the union because of high trading tarrifs (taxes) amoung other things. It was only when the civil war was in full force that Linclon signed the eminipation proclimation, which essentialy did nothing because at this time the south was a seperate country. It wasn't untill the war was over, and the south re-joined the union that this took effet.
He needs to go back to 8th grade history and get his facts straigt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What a kook! It's so obvious that Firefly's war of secession has only cursory resemblances to the civil war. The war in Firefly was about economic forces, specifically the frontier getting tired of having none. Slavery wasn't even an issue in the conflict. Still, if slavery had been an issue it would be more likely the Alliance that seemed to support slavery. Certainly Mal, a browncoat, is firmly against the practice.
I find that most people who profess to "hate" Firefly never really got past the "aahww don't replace Dark Angel" feeling. They claim they saw many episodes and yet fail to accurately recount a single one without getting it all wrong.
My feeling is that like most race baters in this county, this guy has an agenda which has more to do with whose in public office than whether there is any real danger of real racial discrimination.
If this guy can't tell the difference between Firefly and the civil war I say it's probably best to ignore him.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ok, the thing that makes me laugh is in all the searches of websites. This is the only bad review, I have ever seen of firefly. I think that speaks more than any other point can.
Next is the fact that he nvr seems to address the fact that it's loosely based on the civil war. The whole "rape" thing is positively hilarious. Kaylee overcomes this through rivers strength. if you listen to the commentary thats a summarization of how joss described it.
o second posst bye the way
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have seen a few bad reviews of Firefly but most of them are outdated and go back to when the show was still airing.
There are a few bad reviews on Amazon.com but very few.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To the foolish and crazy man who wrote the article:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To the foolish and crazy man who wrote the article:
Yes, i posted it twice because you honestly deserve double the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by stillshiny:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
As long as we're considering supernatural influence on the Sept. 11th attacks, it seems there's far more evidence to indicate Allah was the actual culprit. Just a thought.
SergeantX
"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith
very well said,
though there are many, many godless and inhuman acts carried out in the name of "god"s" that have no basis in their teachings only the overzealous passions of extremists.
but sadly there are such violent hate-filled teachings as well.
I know it's a drift from this thread in a thread, but it actually brings us back to the SCi-Fi of Firefly.I wonder if we will learn more of the "Philosophy" of Reavers.
MAL
Reavers might take issue with that philosophy. If they had a philosophy.
Mal: “See how I'm not punching him? I think I've grown!”
"but sadly there are such violent hate-filled teachings as well."
I suggest reading the Qur'an (Koran) or even just an introductory book on Islam then deeply reconsidering that statement.
O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
Qur'an [26:83]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
As long as we're considering supernatural influence on the Sept. 11th attacks, it seems there's far more evidence to indicate Allah was the actual culprit. Just a thought.
SergeantX
"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith
SergeantX,
Better late than never but here it does. I am struck dumb by the audacity of your statement. It is the equivallent of saying that Jesus was responsible for the Holocost, which is the farthest thing from the truth. I find your comment both ignorent and insulting both as a Muslim and as a human being. The acts of extemits (few or many) are not the acts of a religion or its god (who, by the way, is the same god that Christians and Jews believe in, "Allah" is just the word for god in Arabic) and it is deeply saddening to see a post like yours.
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Relax, you have completely misunderstood Sarge. He is assuming that we all realize that blaming Allah for 911 is completely ridiculous.
Originally posted by Nur:
SergeantX,
I am struck dumb by the audacity of your statement. It is the equivallent of saying that Jesus was responsible for the Holocost, which is the farthest thing from the truth. I find your comment both ignorent and insulting both as a Muslim and as a human being. The acts of extemits (few or many) are not the acts of a religion or its god (who, by the way, is the same god that Christians and Jews believe in, "Allah" is just the word for god in Arabic) and it is deeply saddening to see a post like yours.
You might have a right to play the "poor me" card but Sarge doesn't deserve the brunt of your frustration, someone else does.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Hey Bub,
Relax, you have completely misunderstood Sarge. He is assuming that we all realize that blaming Allah for 911 is completely ridiculous.
You might have a right to play the "poor me" card but Sarge doesn't deserve the brunt of your frustration, someone else does.
SargeX and Succatash,
Well not being a mind reader mistakes can be made. Considering the fact that its dangerous to assume that anyone is going to understand exactly what he meant I'm woman enough to appologize. I have to say though that your "poor me" comment was a bit of a stretch, I don't recall feeling sorry for myself at all while writing that. Respect though, must be given for you finding out that I'm from Canada then cleverly speaking to me in the X-Men dialect of Canadian English.
Cheers Bub,
Nur
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You took out the 'bub', whats up with that?
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I haven't fully read the article, still reading it. Plus there being over hundred posts here, I don't want to sit on my ass and read them all, but I would like to add my two cents on what I read.
First off, Yes this guy is free to state his opinion, thats the beauty of America.
Second off, I am a feely moderate christian, and I have my views and morals so as presented to me by the church. I however know that you can't make everyone see eye to eye. Where I stand against abortion, another won't, but that is their choice and I respect that.
Anyways on to my few points, and please remember I did say I didn't read all of his points... I will have to force myself to read the rest later (he can have his opinion and I can respect him for it, I just don't have to respect the opinion :P ).
Now I could be wrong, but I take it one of the major arguments is that slavery was the major reason to the civil war? It was a key issue, but never the main reason. The South, with its fewer 'voting' population (even with the ... what was it 3/5's act about only 3 out of every 5 slaves would be counted in a vote???) felt it would not be able to have a fair hearing or allowed to have its own indepenence from the northern states. They felt that the North was domaiting the scene, and in many ways it was.
Plus, we never did hear if the slaves in Firefly were black, white, chinese, or whatever. They could just be a lower 'caste' as it seems to be almost in effect in firefly. The lowest of the low. There might not be a REAL caste system in effect, but that doesn't mean that people won't act like there isn't one.
In firefly, the reason the independents wanted to be INDEPENDENT was that their lifes were being constircted and held back by the Alliance (The Americans and the Chinese who run things :P). They weren't allowed to celebrate their own holidays or have their own governments. They did have their freedoms and soveinty as long as they weren't big enough to exoplit. Once that changed, once they had enough people, a industry to support themselves did the Alliance finally move in.
It was quoted as being said, that settlers were only given enough to live on, maybe a few cattle but that was it. In the shortess way I can see this, its all about expansion. In message we find out that Tracey's family was FORCED to live on their world.
In almost every example I have read of or know of, one of the main definition of "Empire" is expansion.. to expand outward, even if it isn't though conquest or settling. There were worlds that could be exploited, people that needed to dispose of and a way to use them at the SAME time. Send them away, give them only what they needed to surive, and come back to them in say 20... 30 years and tell them they are part of this great alliance, and that they would then now work for them. It would be cheap, easy, and very cost-effective.
In all my years of watching Sci-fi shows, this one has really captured my heart. Oh, other sci-fi films and shows (ie. star wars, star terk, babylon 5, farscape, and others) have held my interest, but Firefly really captured how I see the future. It isn't pretty.
It makes sense to me that America (if we don't fuck ourselves someway, or someone doesn't help us do it) and China would be the dominate players in the future. America in the fact that, for better or worse, we are the most powerful country/nation in the world. China has most of the world's population, and I don't think anything would really ever change that (China and the world's larget's population... America I think might fall some day... not any time soon, but some day :P). The fact that they would realize this and say "Hey, instead of killing each other, lets rule togther!" makes complete sense to me.
It would take YEARS just to build a Infomation Age on a world from the ground up. The logicists involed to transfer the needed martieral and other supplies would most likely not be very cost effective. Only the most needed, from vitiams to medicine to the most simple of to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Your argument that southern heads of households did not aspire to own slaves because they couldn't afford it is ridiculous. What else do people aspire to than things that are presently out of their reach?
Well.. I know I want to aspire to be a writer... but that doesn't mean I won't ever become one... and the fact that everyone in the South wanted to own a slave!?!?!?!?
From the Gettysburg movie (I can't find a script to copy this from so it is coming from memory.. so it might be off a bit).
Lt. Tom Chamberlain: "I mean no disrespect to you fighting men. But I cannot seem to see why you are fighting this here war."
Rebal Solider: "Why are you fighting it?"
Lt. Tom Chamberlain: "To free the slaves, preserve the Union."
Rebal Solider: "I don't care one way or another about no damn Darkies. I am fighting for my rights (sounds like rats). Thats what we all are fighting for"
Lt. Tom Chamberlain: "Your what?"
Rebal Solider: "My Rights (sounds like rats again). Why can't you live your way and let us live our own. (I know this isn't very exact but you have to bare with me :P). Live and let live I heard a few say."
Not every single person rich or poor wanted to own slaves. Some poor farmer might think it would be great to have one or two to help around the farm. Some rich cotton merchat might be against it for reglious. But Not everyone in the south wanted to own slaves regardless of how it is presented.
And I know this was the movie and not the book (I have read the book a hundred different times and will keep on reading it). But it does bring up a great point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
As long as we're considering supernatural influence on the Sept. 11th attacks, it seems there's far more evidence to indicate Allah was the actual culprit. Just a thought.
SergeantX
"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith
SergeantX,
Better late than never but here it does. I am struck dumb by the audacity of your statement. It is the equivallent of saying that Jesus was responsible for the Holocost, which is the farthest thing from the truth. I find your comment both ignorent and insulting both as a Muslim and as a human being. The acts of extemits (few or many) are not the acts of a religion or its god (who, by the way, is the same god that Christians and Jews believe in, "Allah" is just the word for god in Arabic) and it is deeply saddening to see a post like yours.
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]
Your response more or less illustrate's my point, which is that it's not Muhammad, or Jesus, who is responsible for 9/11 but more the notion that we should all be willing to give up rationality and indulge in religious fantasies. The Christians and the Muslims are equally responsible for promoting a world view the eschews personal responsibility in favor of 'faith'.
Or to put it another way, I'm reminded of an incident immediately after 9/11. My boss at work was telling me how happy he was to have George Bush as president, because Bush was a "prayin' man". I was compelled to remind him that the terrorists who smashed into the World Trade Center towers were "prayin' men". Probably prayin' while they did it.
SergeantX
"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.ratsalad.com/teevee/zaza_fireflyredux.htm
anybody read his reply to this thread? lol.
On a side note - I would just like to say that: "If you really want to help the world - pick the log out of your own eye."
More problems on this earth are caused by theft, greed, and terrible parrenting than are caused by rap music, dungeons and dragons, and Heavy Metal (or media of any type).
It takes a real simpleton to point the scape goat on something that can't fight back. It makes life easy, and it makes none of us have to change.
The columbine shooters listened to hate music which was sung in a language they didn't speak. This was clearly the problem - yanno, moreso then the parrents who didn't notice their kids were using loud power tools to create bombs in their garage. I could list about a thousand examples.
TV shows don't make the world a better or worse place - people do.
The man who wrote the article we're all talking about is a moron.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought this was a joke site, perhaps something from TheOnion.com? This knuckle head is as far off on his knowledge of History as he is of what a good Sci Fi show consists.
I grew up in Atlanta and know a fair bit on what the War of Northern Agression was about. It was NOT about 'Slavery'. I have no prob w/ anyone who doesn't 'get' Firefly, or even like it, but to go out of their way to keep any potential Firefly productions from being made???
p.s. Anyone who hails from 'northern' Virginia, as this clown states, is clearly a Yankee anyways, so what more needs be said ?
Haters of FIREFLY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I find laughable is how this guy changes his tone and story in this latest article. He is obviously one of these self righteous, elitist types who is so utterly convinced of what he knows, that he can not be swayed by anything, no matter how many sources you cite.
I have to admit I am ashamed to acknowledge the fact he is a resident of the Old Dominion. I have lived in Virginia nearly all of my life, and love no place on earth the way I do Virginia. He is right in his statement that most who live in Northern Virginia are from elsewhere, mostly the North. The biggest problem I have w/ Virginia now is a lose of identity. Our government has kowtowed to Northern business and interest for so long that the hospitality and gentile manner of the population has changed since I was younger. It is fast becoming a place in which I no longer wish to raise my children.
His spouting of revisionist history and citing justifications for the War of Northern Aggression is just another in a long list of insults piled on the loser of our fight for independence.
I for one am glad he is gone.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Took me a while to catch up with this thread. Phew! But it's mostly (aside from rather pointless personal attacks) got interesting things to say, especially the exchanges between wz and the-finally-outed-as-a-pro browncoat1.
To return to the show a little: having finally watched the DVD extras, there is a deleted scene regarding the battle of Serenity which places Mal and Zoe a bit differently, and basically makes the point (that is barely implied by the rest of the show) that the experience of the war left them totally alienated from both "causes" of the Independents/Alliance conflict. The effect I think is to place Mal more firmly in browncoat1's camp and to make, for example, the barfight at the beginning of "The Train Job" less about Mal's support of whatever political goals the "Independents" had and more about Mal's rebuffing a personal insult...and also in large part about his general desire to see fatheads taken down a peg. "We will rise again" seems less like the "Lost Cause" tagline and more ironic and playful--since it is said in a context in which Mal et. al. know full well they would never assist in such a venture.
But return to one of my original points: the specific view of freedom (i.e. as freedom from government interference in one's affairs, as detachment from society, etc.; which it is certainly possible that Joss planned to criticize through the River story arc etc.) which Mal articulates is drawn historically from the experiences of Southern whites following the Civil War who saw military Reconstruction as an attempt to boss folks around. Nearly to a person Southern blacks had the opposite view, and believed that their personal freedoms could only be protected by government interference. Of course, what they found out was that the Northerners motivated to protect black rights purely by principle were few in number, that racism didn't respect the Mason-Dixon line (e.g. in four northern states referenda on black voting were held in 1865-66 and in all cases failed by bare majorities), and that concerns of power and profit would hold sway in Reconstruction, as browncoat1 notes. To say North good, South evil is of course too broad a statement to ever be true, but I am quite certain that even the pilloried wz agrees with this.
There seems to be consensus (?) that the Southern political and economic elites who made the decision in state legislatures etc. to secede viewed the issue largely in terms of slavery. The remaining dispute (besides the North good/South bad or North bad/South good one) seems to be around whether it is fair or reasonable to tar all Southerners/Confederate soldiers with the same brush, or whether it is fair or reasonable to deny the historical voices of those who fought for other reasons. And as this issue pertains to the study of history (i.e. what actually motivated people at the time etc.), again I think there is agreement that Confederates' motivations were complex and multivalent.
However, wz's argument had less to do with the actual history (although it quickly wended its way there) than in the persistence of the myth of the Lost Cause, constructed following the end of Reconstruction through early Confederate memorials and coinciding with legalized segregation etc., and the extent to which firefly fed into/deployed this myth. The specific purpose of this "Lost Cause" was to deny entirely the relevance of slavery to the Civil War, to assert that Reconstruction (i.e. the attempt to create a South in which blacks had full civil and political rights) was a horrible mistake, etc. etc. In this way the very elites for whom the Civil War WAS about slavery appropriated the motivations of the legions of southern soldiers to glorify their own decisions, and of course their attempts to write blacks completely out of Southern political life. Now, Northern elites were perfectly happy to go along with this as well--as apparently is John McCain. To be clear, the myth of the Lost Cause performs the same interpretive work which browncoat1 et. al. criticize--taki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. Okay lordj, I think you wrapped things up effectively here. I read this thread awhile back but didn't get involved because frankly, it came down to a pissing contest with wz. However ill placed his "witty" article seemed, he had all of us effectively outgunned in terms of both calm and historical accuracy. So I'm glad to see there is a second "neutral, informed" perspective making an appearance because the more grownups we have the better.
Two things though, and I'll try to keep this short. First, I know the deleted scene you speak of; it was part of the original pilot episode (versus the one with the battle at the beginning). Totally right on the impression on that scene, the words were powerful and Ms. Torres did a nice job of hitting them home. But I think a similar, lesser impression can be taken from the current pilot. I think the Mal we see is there, but it isn't nearly as clear.
Second point mostly complicates things by throwing in the philosophy of pop culture and truth and cliches and archetypes into the mix. You say the Lost Cause was misrepresenting history, which is true. The show uses the Lost Cause because I believe you said it was simpler. Now comes the question related to what I think wz might say: Is the Lost Cause in the show a misrepresentation of what happened? If that is the case then the show is close to (if not exactly) what wz says it is (although the extent of his perceived dangers of such a thing seem much less powerful to me). But we have to remember, were talking about the realm of fiction, which misrepresents with simplicities and archetypes not for nefarous (sp?) reasons but for audience related ones.
Of course, if Mal is disillusioned with both sides like you also theorized, then it wouldn't make a difference at all, would it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you for the compliment LordJ.
I would like to say that the "Lost Cause" theory is the moniker given to the misrepresentation of history by historians, both Northern & Southern, that tried to paint things in something other than the truth.
Where exactly the so called "Lost Cause" myth began, and by whom is lost to history. I would compare the "Lost Cause" to the, let's call it the "Righteous Cause" of the North. I find it fascinating that the rally cry of the North & Lincoln and his gov't became "Free the slaves". What is odd is that the war started in 1861, the Emancipation Proclomation was given in 1863, and freed as many slaves as me standing on a street corner giving the same speech. Read the Proclomation. No slaves were freed in any areas under control of the Union, only in the South, which the North could not enforce at the time the speech was given.
I would also like to point out that though slavery was abolished in that "land of the free" north of the Mason-Dixon line, many states of the Union had laws in effect as early as 1846 making it illegal for blacks to live in their states. Illinois, "The Land of Lincoln", was one of the first to pass this legislation. Many states forcibly ejected blacks to keep them outside their borders. So I ask, if they could not go South for fear of being enslaved, and were not wanted in the North, who were willing to fight "to free them", where were they to go? Lincoln had some very interesting ideas, like sending them to Africa, what he called "their native land" regardless of where they were born, to "colonize" on behalf of the U.S.
As for WZ having anyone "outgunned in terms of both calm and historical accuracy" I would have to say that is not clear to me, or I imagine others.
I am hoping the "the more grownups we have the better" was not directed at me, or my opinion, whether or not an individual agrees w/ it. It may not agree w/ the "popular" version of history, but the truth is never popular if it colors the victor in a less than squeaky clean light.
I agree w/ you LordJ on your observation of Mal and his disillusionment of both the Alliance and the Independants. I think he does not care for the bullying presence of the Alliance or their infringing on the rights and freedoms of the planets and people they do not lift a finger to help. I also think he lost connection w/ the Independants when they abandoned him, Zoe, and his unit in Serenity Valley. I would also say that giving up on the cause so many had died for was unforgivable to him. I would think that loss of trust and faith also caused him to lose his faith in god.
The bar scene in "Train Job" is Mal's little act of rebellion against the Alliance.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:*sigh*, this article has all the intellectual imaturity of that 'LoTRs Racist Tapestry' article from Indymedia.
Originally posted by Succatash:
Firefly Must Die
http://www.ratsalad.com/teevee/zaza_fireflymustdie.htm
Dad: What shall we watch tonight? (Removes pipe tobacco from cardigan)
Mom: How about Firefly? (Places bowl of popcorn on coffee table)
Little Bobbie: (Runs in from den) I love science fiction!
Little Susie: (Jumping up and down in excitement) Kaylee's my favorite character!
Dad: I hear she gets raped to death this week!
Mom: Not only that - she dies weeping!
Bobbie and Susie: Yay!!!!!!
I guess this kind of violent pornography is justified when you're a wunderkind who makes "philosophical dramas about the search for meaning."
Utter CRAP!
You know, you can take any work of art and impose a subtext onto it. Which is what this ... "writer"... has done. However, you must demonstrate your subtext.
To point out one outlandish deconstruction this 'writer' makes - (This guy didn't even come close) The silly gripe he brings up about rape is beyond reactionary and matches some of the vitriolic rants of Rush Limbaugh (on the pills, not vintage Rush). The word rape has been used twice in Firefly. Both times were in different contexts. Now, two disimilar examples do not an arguement make.
You can't accuse a story of a mysoginistic tone with two disconnected strands of dialog.
Well, I could rip this horribly childish first year academia another hole point by point but I just haven't the time. Let me just say that pseudo intellectual twits are a dime a dozen and I'm fully confident that the heart and soul of so wonderful a show as Firefly will overcome such trivialities.
Crips! There are LOTS of horribly unreasonable media brain goo out there. Reality TV itself isn't a target? I could hit that with a two ton hyperbole. Take that Enterprise show - a fascistic, racist free for all (did ya SEE the Fanatical Fundimentalist Suiside Bombers last week?). Why no one is writing articles about this horrorible, horrible show makes me wonder ...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey, I really like your William Blake quote. Yes, I took out the Bub. I say Bub all the time in a casual way, but I didn't want you to take it rudely, plus, I thought you might be female.
Originally posted by Nur:
You took out the 'bub', whats up with that?
The "poor me" comment perhaps came out a bit too harshly, sorry. When I read your post I thought perhaps you have been discriminated against for ethnic or religious reasons. If you have been discriminated against, then you are a victim. A victim should protest and denounce the persecuters. Victims have a right to say "poor me." But Sarge isn't one of the racist persecuters, that's all I was trying to say.
Sarge has fooled me in the past by posting rude things but he is 100% just joking. Although, one time he said something sexual about my mother, and I think he was serious. Well, that's a story for another day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Getting back to that original "Stop the Firefly Movie Now" site; I ran across it by accident, and am actually glad I did, as a link the author had the odd courtesy to install helped me redicover fireflyfans.net;* I read a good deal of it, though not all, or even most (it soon became clear that the author was too impressed with his own cleverness, and was drowning his few semivalid points in self-stroking repetitive beef by-product).
However, I'm not here to discuss the literary or historical merits (or lack of same) of that site.
What its existence points out is that we browncoats had better be ready to deal with the issues it raises. Without getting into the complexities of the American Civil War (I'll save that for another posting),(or twenty), most people -- most American TV viewers -- prefer to think of history as a series of simple "Good Guys/Bad Guys" scenarios. And no war except possibly Vietnam pushes so many emotional hot buttons as the Civil war in the American zeitgeist.
Watching a few episodes, especially "Shindig", or "Our Mrs. Reynolds", would probably help dismiss the idea that the Independents are Confederates (except on the battlefield.) Assuming, that is, that Mal's attitudes are typical of Independents (and there's no reason not to.)
But we can't assume greater knowledge of Firefly is the perfect answer; the author of that original poison pen piece had a fairly decent familiarity with the program. (One wonders why?)
Point is, what I'm looking for is a one-sentence "High Concept" explanation to throw at the aforementioned "Linear/Binary" mindsets; best I've been able to come up with is "Yeah, it's like the Civil war, except that here the north was the side with the slaves."
Anybody got better?
*Footquote: "Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes." -- Frank Drebbin
RocketJock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:Quote:
Hey Bub,
Relax, you have completely misunderstood Sarge. He is assuming that we all realize that blaming Allah for 911 is completely ridiculous.
You might have a right to play the "poor me" card but Sarge doesn't deserve the brunt of your frustration, someone else does.
SargeX and Succatash,
Well not being a mind reader mistakes can be made. Considering the fact that its dangerous to assume that anyone is going to understand exactly what he meant I'm woman enough to appologize. I have to say though that your "poor me" comment was a bit of a stretch, I don't recall feeling sorry for myself at all while writing that. Respect though, must be given for you finding out that I'm from Canada then cleverly speaking to me in the X-Men dialect of Canadian English.
Cheers Bub,
Nur
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]
Just wondering but what is "the X-Men dialect of Canadian English"?
You're gonna come with us...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CaptainTightPants:Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:Quote:
Hey Bub,
Relax, you have completely misunderstood Sarge. He is assuming that we all realize that blaming Allah for 911 is completely ridiculous.
You might have a right to play the "poor me" card but Sarge doesn't deserve the brunt of your frustration, someone else does.
SargeX and Succatash,
Well not being a mind reader mistakes can be made. Considering the fact that its dangerous to assume that anyone is going to understand exactly what he meant I'm woman enough to appologize. I have to say though that your "poor me" comment was a bit of a stretch, I don't recall feeling sorry for myself at all while writing that. Respect though, must be given for you finding out that I'm from Canada then cleverly speaking to me in the X-Men dialect of Canadian English.
Cheers Bub,
Nur
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]
Just wondering but what is "the X-Men dialect of Canadian English"?
You're gonna come with us...
Have you ever read the X-Men comics Cap'n?
Wolverine is from Canada and always calls people 'Bub'. Its kind of like his 'Canadian thing'. While other Canadians get stereotyped with beer and hockey, Canadian X-Men get funny words that I don't think I've ever heard anyone in Canada use. Now I do live in the big city, but my parents are from small little towns as are most of my relatives who I visit frequently, maybe people do say it but I've never heard them.
I think he does it in the cartoon too, but I can't for the life of me remember if he ever says it in the movies.
Hope that explains it.
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an [26:83]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah!!! I see. I have read a few of the comics years ago. My kids were into them and watched the cartoons too. I never noticed the Canadian language thing in the comics but did realize that Wolverine was from the GWN. I don't remember if he said it in the movies either though. My girls might but they are already in bed.
Where are you from? I have friends up in Toronto, and maybe someday if I'm really good, I may get to move up there. 
No, really!
You're gonna come with us...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:Quote:Hey, I really like your William Blake quote. Yes, I took out the Bub. I say Bub all the time in a casual way, but I didn't want you to take it rudely, plus, I thought you might be female.
Originally posted by Nur:
You took out the 'bub', whats up with that?
The "poor me" comment perhaps came out a bit too harshly, sorry. When I read your post I thought perhaps you have been discriminated against for ethnic or religious reasons. If you have been discriminated against, then you are a victim. A victim should protest and denounce the persecuters. Victims have a right to say "poor me." But Sarge isn't one of the racist persecuters, that's all I was trying to say.
Sarge has fooled me in the past by posting rude things but he is 100% just joking. Although, one time he said something sexual about my mother, and I think he was serious. Well, that's a story for another day.
Ahhh. Well I am a girl, but its all good, and no offence was taken. Sarge and I had a little chat, and we (I) understand eachother (what he really ment) much better now (hopefully I'm not being presumptuous in saying that).
Yeah, you gotta love Blake. He's shiny.
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
Every great idea starts out as blasphemy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sarge is pretty cool, eh? He's probably my most favorite Browncoat I've met, but don't tell him or he'll give me shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
Wolverine is from Canada and always calls people 'Bub'.
"Bub"? How rude! I thought that was for NY cab drivers.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Sarge is pretty cool, eh? He's probably my most favorite Browncoat I've met, but don't tell him or he'll give me shit.
Ahhh, more Canadian. Shiny. Don't worry, my lips=sealed.
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Saint Jayne:Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
Wolverine is from Canada and always calls people 'Bub'.
"Bub"? How rude! I thought that was for NY cab drivers.
Hehe. But remember, we're stereotyping Canada here and all Canadians are a hockey-loving, beer-drinking, kind folk. So it can't possibly be rude, eh?
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Succatash understands beer, but hockey not so much. Thinks playing it is fun, but watching it and waiting for a fight is unexciting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought Canadians were Hosers, eh?
and they do that curling thing too. Which makes absolutely no sense at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:Quote:
Originally posted by Saint Jayne:Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:
Wolverine is from Canada and always calls people 'Bub'.
"Bub"? How rude! I thought that was for NY cab drivers.
Hehe. But remember, we're stereotyping Canada here and all Canadians are a hockey-loving, beer-drinking, kind folk. So it can't possibly be rude, eh?
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Or to put it another way, I'm reminded of an incident immediately after 9/11. My boss at work was telling me how happy he was to have George Bush as president, because Bush was a "prayin' man". I was compelled to remind him that the terrorists who smashed into the World Trade Center towers were "prayin' men". Probably prayin' while they did it.
There is a large difference between what Bush is praying for, and what the 9-11 hijackers were praying for, and to a large extent, that makes all the difference
The desire to condemn the sentiments of religious folks is a natural reaction to such attacks. The idea that the problem is religion in general, is also natural as well. But ultimately its a very superficial similarity.
Our fundies in this country may be annoying, but they are not out actively killing folks. Even the few who claim to bomb abortion clinics "in the name of God" don't get much support even from other Christians who agree with their goals
I know its considered hip to denigrate religious beliefs as being nothing but superstition. But, I don't think this is either an effective persuasional stratagy, or even a valid point. Religion, like culture, is ultimately and pragmatically a collection of ideas. Ideas have to work their way out in the real world if they are to survive, as bad or false ideas end up getting their adherents killed off.
One thing that has bugged me about 9-11 is not the people who were killed, but all the ones that were not. The towers were expected to contain 50,000 to 100,000 people that day, either working or visiting. Even with 30,000 there at the time of the attack, only 10 percent of that number did not make it. The other 90 percent survived.
Also, the Pentagon was undergoing a refurbiment project to protect the building in case of a major attack. One side had just been completed, and not all of the staff had moved back in. The terrorists had a 1 in 5 chance of hitting this exact side on 9-11. Hmmm...
As a pagan, I recognize that it was Christians who put in the separation of Church and state into the US Constitution. Granted, it was a lesson they learned the hard way, in Europe. But the key point is that most Christians have learned that lesson. And that makes all the difference in the world.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Point is, what I'm looking for is a one-sentence "High Concept" explanation to throw at the aforementioned "Linear/Binary" mindsets; best I've been able to come up with is "Yeah, it's like the Civil war, except that here the north was the side with the slaves."
Anybody got better?
Umm.. Do we really know the war was a civil one? It may have been an Alliance war of conquest. We really don't know, and the more I think about it, Mal does mention "uniting all the planets under one government to be equally ignored". If they were not united in the first place, then how could the INDEPENDENTS rebel? Wouldn't they have been called Rebels instead by the Alliance?
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I thought Canadians were Hosers, eh?
and they do that curling thing too. Which makes absolutely no sense at all.
Curling, yes we do (personally I don't get it, but my mother swears its the greatest winter sport ever). Lacross too. But Hosers, eh? thats just plain unkind. Bob and Doug would be ashamed of you.
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
Long live beavers, and coloured money!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nah, I took my nephews and nieces to "Brother Bear" last month (after they hounded me endlessly about it) and was glad that the brothers were in the movie. Them mooses were just funny as heck...
Quote:
Originally posted by Nur:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I thought Canadians were Hosers, eh?
and they do that curling thing too. Which makes absolutely no sense at all.
Curling, yes we do (personally I don't get it, but my mother swears its the greatest winter sport ever). Lacross too. But Hosers, eh? thats just plain unkind. Bob and Doug would be ashamed of you.
Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake
Long live beavers, and coloured money!
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Browncoat1, sorry about my comments. I do remember the thread had some good arguments in it, but from my perspective it felt like they didn't have the oomph I wanted them too. Just an opinion. And the grownups thing was more an acknowledgement to the guys who hopped on here and were basically flaming wz. People can be defensive and it isn't them, just the way they are, but I was a little bit embarrassed. You are exempt, of course.
It looks like the thread is very pleasant but I still see merit in an analysis of the "rules" of the medium the show is presented on. Just two cents.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Drakon
Umm.. Do we really know the war was a civil one? It may have been an Alliance war of conquest. We really don't know, and the more I think about it, Mal does mention "uniting all the planets under one government to be equally ignored". If they were not united in the first place, then how could the INDEPENDENTS rebel? Wouldn't they have been called Rebels instead by the Alliance?
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
Good question, actually. I got the Civil War impression from non-canonical sources, I.E. TV Guide's first Firefly article, and from semi-canonical sources, such as Joss's more-than-occasional references to the historical parallels involved. But Drakon's right; nothing in the actual episodes establishes the nature of the conflict as such.
Keep in mind though, that I'm trying to come up with a simple explanation of the show's historical parallel to use on the uninitiated.
"These are simple folk. The common clay of the new land. You know... Morons." -- The Waco Kid
RocketJock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When I came across Mr. Zaza's article on Ex Isle forums, I was rather unimpressed with his tone, which struck me as unnecessarily mean-spirited. Also, his opinions on the artistic merit of Firefly seem to me groundless. I didn't watch Firefly because it was good science-fiction (although that helps); I watched Firefly because the characters - Simon, River and Book in particular - were interesting, annoying slang aside. Also, it seemed almost reminiscient of Trigun (one of my favourite TV shows of all time, period). Also, the reason I could be talked into watching the DVD's at all was that I was told it wouldn't be 'Buffy In Space' (and was glad to find that, indeed, it wasn't).
I may be treading some dangerous ground here, but... Though Mr. Zaza reads as both pretentious and contentious in his approach to Firefly's historical references, he does make some valid points. When I watched the show for the first time, I must say that I immediately caught the references to the Civil War and asked a lot of the same questions Mr. Zaza asked. I think that this kind of implicit sympathy for the Confederate cause (even in a fictional scenario), especially where the aspects of institutionalised racism and exploitation go ignored, is reprehensible to say the least. And (my apologies to Mr. RocketJock for what may seem a hardline attitude) but slavery is an evil whose greater I'm hard-pressed to discover, so I must agree with Mr. Zaza in that '[t]he Confederates needed a good spanking and they got it'.
Also, I'm not catching the point in the series or in the movie where it's made clear that slavery was one of the evils of the Alliance (since references to slavery in both 'Shindig' and 'Jaynestown' ostensibly took place on outer worlds where the Alliance still has very little presence).
你们写中文的时候，清写中文写得正确。
同盟万岁！
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now I haven't read all of this thread because I feel the need to put in my 2 cents right now, so here I go.
to everyone who thinks the civil war was about slavery, and only slavery I have a question for which I shall recieve lots of flack and fire but it must be asked
IS YOUR HEAD UP YOUR ASS FOR THE WARMPTH?
I hate having to ask this quesion and will probably be called uncivil for it but I had to, because no matter how far back in time you look you will never find a war that was fought for only one reason, never name a war and there are 10 reasons or more why it was fought. slavery wasn't even the main reason. the MAIN reason was that the north was unfairly taxing them
well who knew I could get so long-winded
it's my insanity that keeps me sane hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm sure it was also much better than "Tru Calling," though I haven't actually seen that show.
Actually, despite the cliche premise of reliving days to save people from dying (and boy, is that a cliche premise, I'll admit), and the dorky title (which references the main character's name. I think there's even a joke she makes about how dorky her name was, I'm not sure, it's been a while), the execution was remarkably good on "Tru Calling", especially after, of all things, Jason Preiestly joined the cast. I was as shocked as anybody could be at a former 90210 actor actually... you know, being able to ACT, but he provided a very good conflict for the show, as they expanded on the mythos and it became increasingly unclear as to whether Tru's using her power to save people is actually Good, or secretly, perhaps, serving the not-so-Good side, since every moment a person who could have died is alive, there is a ripple affect. It's slowly-but-surely implied that each (Tru and Jack, Jack being Preistley's character) is being manipulated as a weapon in some sort of bigger, perhaps cosmic-level war by forces that humans can perhaps never hope to comprehend... and you have NO IDEA whose side would be "right" or "wrong", if any.
The earliest episodes were OK (aside from the writers being a bit confused as to what character subplots they should intro or kill, for a while there), but the later episodes were the best. Basically, I would recommend most starting with the episodes where Preistly's character came in. Well, that's assuming you can find anybody who still might rent the show, instead of resorting to buying it (though it's been out on DVD for so long, you might very well be able to find a damn good deal on it, who knows). Wonderfalls died sooner and quicker, and it's still selling better than TC. :P I actually found a Wonderfalls boxset in Best Buy a few weeks back, but could not find TC.
The biggest problem with TC was that by the time they had found their sea legs, they were put in opposite CSI (which killed it), then canceled in favor of Point Pleasant (dead), then Fox didn't even show the final episode after PP failed, because it was a Christmas episide and it was spring when they aired the "second season" (read: final 6 of 26 episodes). So there's not much real resolution, though you can see tantalizing hints of where it could have gone, and it would actually have been pretty damn interesting, with a lot of moral ambiguity and increasingly developed characters and, yes, even a surprisingly well-done cat-and-mouse game between Tru and Jack.
But I think I've aided in the resurrection of this thread for long enough. :P Just thought I'd chime in, since somebody mentioned TC, and I always thought that TC was rather underrated, especially considering how bad it COULD have been (heck, I even gave in to the impulse and bought a copy of both seasons' DVD sets, though I still haven't gotten around to watching/rewatching any of them). I do personally like Firefly better (I like the characters better, for the most part, and there's more developed characters period, let alone characters I like), but it was a decent show that would have gotten pretty damn good if it had had a full second season (I read the blog of one of the writers shortly after the thing was canceled... poor things. They had planned out through season 2, episode 8 of TC... only to learn that only 6 episodes had been ordered for the second season). Wonderfalls was another good one, actually, arguably better in turn than TC and... I admit, sometimes, I feel like it's (Wonderfalls, I mean) the funniest damn show I've ever seen. Though I'm most happy with the lesson Tim Minear (exec producer on both Firefly and Wonderfalls) learned from Firefly, which was: Have the first season be completely and utterly able to be self-contained, because you may NEVER get a chance to finish it. He was right on the money, since it got canceled after being put in the Time Slot of Doom as well (why they didn't put it on Wednesday or Tuesday or Monday, I'll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since I'm kind of the only one who mentioned the Civil War in the last half-page or so (this is a rather long thread, I agree) - I'll have to assume that the 'head up your a$$' question was aimed in my general direction.
To which I defy you, Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown, to show me precisely where and when I said that the Civil War was about slavery and only slavery. It was about different ways of life and different ways of thinking. But you are absolutely, one-hundred percent, one-hundred-and-eighty degrees WRONG about the Civil War being primarily fought because, um, how did you put it?... 'the north [sic] was unfairly taxing them'.
There were multiple reasons, tariffs being one of them. But tariffs were only unfair to the landed gentry of the South whose humongous profit margins were being cut into a little too much by the federal government. And tariffs were only an immediate reason.
For example, I could ask why the Roman Empire fell and you could say because the Huns invaded and caused mass migrations among East Germanic tribes who plundered and looted the empire until it collapsed. But I would ask you to look at the larger picture: Rome had grown corrupt and complacent over the past several centuries, oppressing and enslaving minority groups such as the Iceni and the Jews. Popular opinion was not with them. Also, their army was largely composed of Germanic mercenaries who deserted or revolted when the Roman commanders were no longer able to pay them.
So again, with the Civil War, I'm asking you to take a look at the larger picture. You have a country which since its inception was composed of two different types of people: East Midlanders who migrated to New England to be able to practise their own respective forms of Low Church Calvinism (though still wanting to do trade with their mother country) in the North and lesser scions of the nobility and poor families in the north of England who thought they could make better fortunes by farming in the South. (You can flame me all you want for oversimplification here, the fact remains that it's a good heuristic model.)
Slavery became an issue later (though still before the Revolution), but since it wasn't prevalent in the Northern merchant centres and it was prevalent in the Southern agricultural regions, it quickly became a regional issue. Add to this that many of the aforementioned Low Church Calvinists (and their spiritual cousins the Quakers) had ethical qualms slavery that later became widespread in the North, and that makes slavery a pretty damn big sectional issue by the time the Civil War comes around.
If you're ready for a civil chat about history instead of an exchange of childish one-liners, I'm here all week. PurpleBelly86, thank-you-very-much-everyone-no-there-is-no-second-person-plural-in-the-English -language, signing off.
你讲中文的时候，讲中文讲得正确啊。
联盟万岁！
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The war had very little, if anything, to do with slavery. The slavery aspect of the Civil War was nothing more than a means for public school brainwashing of children to believe that the South is full of racist rednecks and that the Confederate flag, the true symbol of American patriotism, has been reduced, in the mind's eye of the masses, to the status of the Swastika.
The South rebeled against the North for many reasons, but in general it was opposition of all of the meddling the North did. People who win the wars write the history.... that's why we don't read about Southern war heros in school. That's why we vilanize the rebellion in real life but embrace it in Star Wars. People don't take too kindly to a centralized government dictating everything they do in their life. The South knew back then what the North was capable of and though the North didn't have the technological means in those days, America has become very Orwellian with it's technology and law today and delights in meddling with other countries and cultures as well as the personal lives of it's own people. We've become borderline Fasist, and will soon be a Police State.... even sooner if we let teachers carry guns in schools.
The North, New York, Wall Street, all the money... all of it being used to exploit peoples of third world countries and reduce them to slaves in factories and make children who are 8 years old and younger work in sweat shops so we can have our disposable dinnerware and styrofoam cups and cheap clothes and shoes. That's what we do now. Just because it's not happening in your back yard doesn't mean that we still don't have and condone slaverey, even if only on a subconscious level for most of the masses. Only difference now is that it's not black slavery and it's not in your face. Hell even the African Americans benefit today off the slavery of third world countries..... anybody else smell the irnoy? I'm drowing in it. The only reason your clothes are so cheap is because some asian kid is working in conditions akin to our greatgrandfathers slaving away in coal mines made a shirt for you today and got to bring back a quarter to his family for his day's work.
It's truly unfortunate that a wonderful symbol of freedom and old school American patriotism and hard work, the Confederate flag, has become a symbol of racism and hate because of the public school system and the media.
To he who thinks that we're better off with the North having won, you muppets for the Empire, I've lived in the North all my life. I'm a resident of the Chicago Suburbs and I hate Repuglicans and Demoncrats alike. The Repuglicans are really f
ing everything up now but the Demoncrats were doing pretty well themselves for 8 years before that and I'm not looking forward to their next inevitable 8 years. We are in desperate need of a third party to help balance out the corruption. Think about that before you start calling me a red neck. I just happen to be a freedom loving patriot who doesn't like the way this government is going and wishes that the South had won. At least we'd have a choice to which principals we choose to live by. Blind believers that this is the way.... The propoganda oozes from the pores of the masses who now have a higher concentration of propoganda pumping through their bodies than they do water.
Are you even human anymore, or a mindless yes-bot for Big Brother?
It's really convenient for people to have such clear cut ideals of good and evil or black and white, or in this case... blue and grey. It makes you go to sleep a lot easier at night when you don't have to think about any of the indoctrination you've been shoveled since you were a little kid.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well said 6ixStringJack & Purplebelly86. Both of you make logical, educated points, and it is good to see open debate without the all too often spiraling into name calling that normally happens when the subject of the War Between the States and its causes comes up.
My stand on things has been made quite clear further up in this thread, but I would like to add one observation that in recent years has been proven to be true. When the Confederacy lost their bid for independence, the South was not the only ones to lose. Seems the vision our Founding Fathers had for this country has been lost. Our government is rife with corruption. The states are powerless and the thing that our Fathers warned us about has come to pass: an all powerful central government sits in D.C. Guess we ALL lost the War.
__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/
http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Chinese have the perfect response to your little rant here: 这套真是你的放屁。
Lemme see. This little response was full of so much bs that I don't know where to begin. Let's start with the assumption that I am a... um, how did you put it?... 'mindless yes-bot for Big Brother'. How did you come to this astounding conclusion. Pray enlighten the rest of us unworthy mortals on how your exalted mind came to such a pontification.
I am no yes-bot for anyone but myself and my own conscience; I don't respect nationalism or patriotism in the forms people often describe. It's dangerous and it brainwashes people to the suffering of others who happen to have been born outside their own borders. I stand for what I think is right, and if it had been the North that endorsed slavery and the South that brought about emancipation, I would have been fully in favour of the South.
That said, I consider myself fairly well-read in American history, especially religious history, having read Dorrien, Zinn et al. (If you've ever read Zinn, it's pretty easy to imagine that after having read that, it's hard to walk away with any indoctrination at all. It's a history that makes you actually think [gasp].) You can take any kind of spin you want, but you can't deny that slavery, being one of the dividing factors between the South and the North, did take a central role in causing the split that made the Civil War even possible. How else can the first of the schisms in American Protestantism be explained? Or the furore over the Fugitive Slave Act? Or Bloody Kansas, et cetera ad nauseam. Again, I'm not saying that slavery was the only reason, and I'm not even saying that it was the pivotal reason. But to deny its role would be to deny a huge mistake in history. If we forget, we shall be doomed to repeat.
Believe me on this one. Being half-Jewish, you can imagine I have something of a perspective on this issue. Likening the Confederate battle-flag to the swastika may not be the best of analogies, but given the way the black people at my school and in my community act about it, I'd say it's probably fairly apt.
Also, being one of your draconian Northerners, it's difficult not to take offense at your obviously bigoted and ill-educated views. The city that I call my home is fairly metropolitan and diverse in both ancestry and viewpoint, and I've never seen or heard anything about the city or state or national government making undue interference in my daily life. (And yes, I did read about Lee, Jackson and Davis in school.) But I know for a fact that I would be drummed out of most Southern towns and universities within a week, because I'm not enough of a Bush lapdog and I'm too much of an 'egghead' (not my description). I'm sorry, but I don't see anything to justify your veneration or your mistaken nostalgia in a country that based its existence on the systematic exploitation of an entire subset of the population based solely on their parentage.
You're welcome to your own opinion, but I would rather live in a society that values an ethic of tolerance, equality and civility than in a society run by the ultra-right-wing fundamentalists and the agriculture and extraction industries that seem to have a stranglehold on the South. Sorry, but I'll take NYC and Wall Street any day over Lynchburg Town and Woolworth's. Rather people would have my wallet than my neck, or the neck of my (free, black) former roommate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can see where you're coming from, BrownCoat1. But it seems to me that if you're going to devolve power away from a central government, devolving into a government closer to home, even so might not be such a good idea. Already we're having trouble with the gay marriage issue. Massachusetts accepts gay marriage, New York recognises gay marriages from other countries, whereas other states refuse to recognise any gay marriage, abroad or at home. Euthanasia is another example. Does each state get to determine the practise of its doctors, such that they cannot practise in other states, or might even be arrested for practising? How is that less totalitarian than having a uniform standard for medical care?
If local issues are of concern, I'd say abolish the state system entirely and go by district. Direct democracy by population, or at least as direct as we can get it; none of this electoral college bull. We wouldn't have issues like gerrymandering or the rivalries between inner California and coastal California, or Illinois and, well, Chicago. And people would be free to address issues that directly affect them.
To be honest, 'states' rights' is kind of an artificial issue to me. States are regions based on an antiquated colonial system which we no longer support, and to be perfectly frank, it's holding us back.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know there is a huge misconception among northerners as to the reasons behind the civil war. Just ask any school aged child in CT ..Why did we go to war with the south? Because of slavery! What rubbish. And, we were all taught that. It took me 32 years to finally understand that the war was over something far more important than slavery. And that, is a giant 'Shame on you' to our education system. 32 years to learn the truth....Clam chowder!! we had it, they didn't, and we wanted to keep it that way...Well, it's true......
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Therein lies the problem PurpleBelly; there is no way in the Special Hell that the federal government would ever relinquish any of it's power. Not ever. They have been working since 1861 (earlier in some respects) to steal away what power they have now. They put a lot of years and effort into it and they will never give it up. There is too much power and money involved to ever simply give it back to the people or states.
I don't necessarily agree with you on statehood holding us back. We can clearly see in history that the needs of certain regions and it's people do not always coincide w/ the needs of people from another. To do away with states and divide them into districts might work on a small scale, but would it not just cause even more political infighting and allow for more corruption.
No, the ideas of our Founding Fathers, for a Republic free of the oppression and interference of an all powerful central government are gone. Short of another revolution we will never win them back.
It reminds me of a line from the "Patriot":
"Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"
Is this not in effect what we have done?
__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/
http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
Wow, where to start? I guess Zaza has a problem with fact that slavery WAS NOT the main reason for the Civil War, no more than the Holocaust was for WWII.
It seems that everything he doesn't like about the South (or history in general) is connected to Firefly on purpose (instead of his warpped imagination) (For some reason McVeigh the NORTHERNER is tied in with the "evil south)
Lastly, I like how this waste of skin doesn't even KNOW that Fox isn't making the movie.
-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger
the civil war was fought for states rights, slavery was an issue but not the ONLY issue. just like the browncoats wants independent right for each plant, same with the south, but it was for the states.
Keep Flying!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm. Definitely not that big of a Mel Gibson fan, so I'm afraid the reference is lost on me.
Even so, I'm not sure but some level of centralisation of power is needed for any federation of states to work. We tried the entire Confederation deal well before 1861, and it failed miserably. (Perhaps you know of the Articles of Confederation?) It's one of the reasons we have a Constitution now, and provisions for a federal system of government.
As regards the second point, I think that states might be able to work - but only if we get rid of the electoral college, to ensure that all states are treated equally when electing the president. Why should states with tiny populations, like Wyoming, get votes that count for three times as much as states like California, because of such an unbalanced system?
Also, I would dispute that the federal government in Washington is 'all-powerful'. A number of states, including my own, signed Kyoto-compliant environmental standards into state law without the approval of the federal government, even though the Bush Administration refused. Why does Oregon now allow euthanasia, or Massachusetts gay marriage and Vermont civil unions? All of these are contentious issues on the national stage, but as you can see there is little the federal government has done to take away the states' rights to legislate in these matters. (Though it may end up having to at some point when inter-state disputes over the legality of gay marriage, euthanasia and environmental regulations turn up.)
As far as the 'dream of the Founding Fathers' goes, depends on the Founding Father you look at. It seems that Alexander Hamilton would approve vociferously of the system we have today, where business organisations operate largely without government oversight and even have significant representation on K Street, but I doubt Ben Franklin or John Adams would have agreed with him.
Of one thing I am sure: even though some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, most of them recognised nevertheless that it was an evil that would have to go at some point. Many of them realised the hypocrisy in fighting in the name of freedom a power which granted freedom to all its insular-side subjects, while the rebels themselves owned slaves. But it took the brave actions of people like William Ellery Channing, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass and even John Brown to make people realise that 'some point' was not just 'any point'.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, I am very familiar with the Articles of Confederation.
I believe that the central government, as it was originally laid out was the best plan. They were to negotiate disputes between the states, be responsible for diplomacy with foreign powers, and to organize the military against any outside threat to the country. That should have been the extent of their power.
Now, we have federal income tax, the federal government has spread their political and military reach across the entire globe, and the electoral college. Our government has become more of an empire than what it was originally intended to do.
I agree that several states have passed laws on the death sentence, euthanasia and the gay marriage without interference, but why do you think that is exactly? Is it because the states still have a plethora of rights, or is it because the government in D.C. is too afraid to take a stand on a hot button issue one way or the other? If they leave it to the states to decide, they wash their hands of subject and have plausible deniability to keep them from losing too many votes in the next election.
I agree with you on the electoral college. The system is broken and should be done away with, the sooner the better.
One of my examples of the usurping of power by the federal government is the deployment of Guard troops overseas. The guard are organized and run by their home states and were organized for the protection of that state. Yet the federals call them up, deploy them full time overseas, and deny their use to the state that created them. Prime example is the Louisiana Guard unit that is an engineering unit. When Katrina hit and their home state was devastated, they asked to come home to do their job. The federals would not let them. The state of Louisiana asked for them to be released to do the job they were created for. Still the feds refused. That is wrong. Guard troops are meant for home defense, not furthering the federal agenda overseas.
Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist as I am sure you are familiar with the Federalist Papers, so it is no surprise his vision did not meet that of the other Founders. Limitation of power for the central government was something that all, with the exception of Hamilton, agreed upon. They had seen how power could corrupt and it negative impact upon citizens, and they wished to avoid that for our fledgling country. Too bad those who came after, especially from 1861 on, did not heed those warnings.
I agree that many saw slavery as "evil" and as an institution that could not and should not last forever. Like the Confederate States of America though, the Founding Fathers had no answer for how such an institution could be done away with without the total collapse of the agrarian system of the South. Some of the Southern States, such as Virginia, were taking steps, even before the War to limit or ban the importation of slaves. This was a small step, but the first step nevertheless toward the dismantling of slavery. Given time, and a viable means for replacing the manpower, slavery would have disappeared in the South. A dark spot on our history to be sure, but one shared by nearly every nation on this planet.
__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/
http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This may surprise you, but I actually agree with you on many points. The decision concerning the Louisiana National Guard was, of course, wrong on the federal government's part, but I'm not seeing the connection to 'states' rights' there, even though the liberties that the state can take with its own National Guard were being infringed. I see that as the Bush Administration and the Republican Party trying to save face with regards to the Iraq War (or their domestic policy, or both), or trying to avoid a situation where they might lose it. It's something they do all the time more and more, I notice, and it's gotten to the point where I'm not really surprised by it anymore. I guess the Republican philosophy has become 'big government is good government if it's our government'.
Same time, when you have people in the White House and in Congress who are as vociferous as they are on the issues of gay marriage, euthanasia, the death penalty et cetera, I do indeed wonder why the federal government hasn't interfered. (The Republicans in Congress are trying for certain, but they're trying to do it by changing the Constitution now - even though that's one power that is granted explicitly to the states through the ratification process.) Given all the rhetoric in addition to dearth of federal action here, I'd say it's not what Mencius would call a demonstration of 不为 (lack of will) but rather a demonstration of 不能 (lack of ability).
You seem to be forgetting, though, that the slave trade was a horse of a different colour from the practise of slavery itself, back in the day. The importation of slaves was banned in Virginia and some of the other Southern states actually before the Northern ones, but that was pre-Revolution. By the time the Civil War came along, the issue of the slave trade was long since gone. The issue at hand was chattel slavery itself, and had been for nigh on fifty years - the ban on the importation of slaves was no progress toward the dismantling of the institution itself, or at most negligible. It was an issue that hounded Congress like plague (and was so compared) for decades. Many solutions had been explored - Lincoln had actually offered the plantation owners to buy off all the slaves at their market price, and he was refused.
But it was an age of prophecy. Like the time of Moses and like the time of Martin Luther King, Jr., it was a time of iniquity and a time of identity crisis. It was a time when you had these tremendous, as Bob Hill, dean of Boston University's Marsh Chapel put it, 'wake-up calls' to the nation. At that time, slavery was not an issue that would, or even could, be put off any longer, that John Brown proved with his (in)famous raid. It was a time when the standard 'no answer' to the abolition of slavery was not a good enough answer to the abolition of slavery. Blacks were fleeing the South left, right and centre like never before, and more and more whites became disenfranchised with the system (even in the South) that exploited them almost as much as it did the slaves. I agree this far - it meant the death of a way of life. But it was a way of life that had been dying for decades before; it was a way of life that deserved to die.
I honestly think that by trying to preserve or prolong that way of life (and there's no point in denying that's what they were trying to do - some might say slavery, others might say economics, yet others might say culture), the Confederacy doomed itself to failure from day zero. It's the second law of thermodynamics: you can't force an untenable system into tenability. In the end, look what happened. The Confederacy won most of the critical battles, but wasted what infrastructure it had, wound up declaring martial law on its own citizens even as the Union ground it down by attrition.
By the way, I must say that I resent immensely your characterisation of everyone who saw the Northern effort to preserve the Union as necessary as being a brainwashed, indoctrinated 'revisionist'. I may just be a philoso
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The connection to state rights is that individual states organize and mostly fund their Guard units. The Guard units are made up of men & women from that state. Those men and women join for the most part with the intention of serving their community, neighbors and state. For the federals to take control of that unit, send them overseas & refuse to allow them to come home is a gross infringement on states rights, and individual rights.
I am well aware of the difference between the trading of slaves, and the institution of slavery itself. My point was that the prohibition of the importation of slaves was the first step toward the demise of the institution.
Yes, slavery was an ongoing issue between the North & South. Religious and regional differences made it a heated issue with neither side able to see the others arguements and causing both to take resistance to their way of thinking as a personal affront. Historians, travelers from abroad, and many others noted the differences in geography, religion, culture, perception, demeanor, etc between North & South to be so profound as to liken to two to being different nations. In many ways they were not far off the mark.
Lincoln's offer to purchase slaves from the South still did not address the issue of the sudden vacuum of labor were the South to accept the offer. Money does not get fields harvested, seed planted, or freight moved. There was simply not enough people in the South at that time to manage the agrarian economy without slave labor.
I agree that slavery deserved to die, but I disagree strongly that the Southern way of life deserved death.
I do not think that slavery doomed the South to death. It was the industrial might, larger poplulation, and naval blockade of the North that defeated the South. A moral issue like slavery did not somehow play into the defeat of the CSA.
Quote:
By the way, I must say that I resent immensely your characterisation of everyone who saw the Northern effort to preserve the Union as necessary as being a brainwashed, indoctrinated 'revisionist'.
I do not recall stating or even insinuating that anyone who believed in the Union was "brainwashed". That is not what I said or intended. If that is what you wish to deduce from my posts, then that is your decision, though it is erroneous. I am not responsible for your inaccurate deduction of my beliefs or statements. Your beliefs on slavery, it's importance in factors leading to the War, and whether the demise of a nation was necessary to end it, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. By that token I am entitled to disagree with you and maintain my own opinions. I will defend your right to your beliefs, even if I myself do not agree or support them. Call me idealistic that way.
__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/
http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoops! Not your post - scratch that last comment, at least insofar as it applies to you. With a topic this long and coming so late to the forum, no wonder I get the authors mixed up. Sorry about that.
But while I disagree with you about the value of the antebellum Southern way of life in relation to the value of the lives of those who were exploited by it, you're definitely to express your opinion and I will also defend your right to do so. I'd like to let you know that I appreciate the fact that you would do the same for me.
But I am entirely in agreement with you about the National Guard issue. I'm just saying that 'states' rights' isn't the only thing at stake, or even the most important thing, as far as the National Guard is concerned. My dad had a grad student that wanted to join the RING, but given the current climate and the 'backdoor draft' decided against it in the end. But it seems that this administration is willing to take any liberty, cross any line, break any rule in pursuit of its foreign agenda - call me a cynic, but it doesn't surprise me that they're misusing the National Guard, especially now that they've legalised torture and denied basic legal rights to American citizens.
Also, it was not slavery that doomed the Confederacy to lose the war per se, but (and here I'm engaging in a kind of what-if history, so this is merely speculation on my part) given the public opinion within the Confederacy during the later years of the war and the actions of the CSA government in response (including declaration of martial law in several regions), it's no great leap of imagination to think there might have been a longer, more bitter civil war afterwards even if the Confederacy had won.
And didn't you say that it was less that six percent of the CSA population that owned slaves? If so, there must have been plenty of free labour, white and black. And given the compensation for the slaves that were freed, the southern plantation owners would be able to hire the work they got for free for at least long enough to regain an economic equilibrium. Sure, there would have been a short-term hit in the profit-margin, but the economy need not have collapsed as hard as it did during the Reconstruction. It's unfortunate that the state governments were so short-sighted and lacking in creativity that they couldn't have found a better way.
And I think we're still living with some of the effects of the culture split today. The South is still largely rural, largely poorly educated and largely xenophobic, and what I call 'big religion' has taken advantage of all three to take over and pervert what noble elements of Southern culture there were. Like I said, I'd gladly take the commercial cynics in the North and on the West Coast over the religious fanatics in the South. I'm a God-fearing man myself, and I grieve to see what the advent of the televangelist has done to the churches in the South. It's definitely nothing like what Jesus would have wanted for his followers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I do not think that slavery doomed the South to death. It was the industrial might, larger poplulation, and naval blockade of the North that defeated the South. A moral issue like slavery did not somehow play into the defeat of the CSA.
I must disagree; The moral issue of slavery did indeed contribute to the Confederate's defeat; it was their refusal to foreswear their "peculiar institution" that caused European powers to deny recognition of the CSA as a legitimate nation. That lack of overseas allies--and the financial/logistical support they could have provided--was a major factor in the south's loss.
While slavery was not the only issue in the civil war, or even the primary cause of it, it was therefore a major factor in the failure of the Confederate cause.
And frankly, it deserved to be. Minus this issue, there was much to be said for the Confederacy. And the North certain wasn't a nation of angels when it came to human rights. But in the end, it was their failure to reject chattel slavery that doomed the antebellum way of life.
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Slavery is a funny topic. In America, when we discuss slavery, we refer to the shameful kidnapping and selling of Africans here in America. Americans do like to walk around with our white hats, but do let's remember that we profited quite nicely from the slave trade, and from having the slave labor to work the plantations.
But are Africans the only ones with such a cross to bear? hardly. Where do you Suppose Shaquille O'Neill got his irish last name from? It was common practice to take irish slaves, who were politely referred to as indentured servants, to the Carribean islands to cut sugar cane, alongside kidnapped Africans. How long do you suppose it took for some irish lad, knowing he would never see the auld sod again, to realize just how good those brown-skinned girls were looking?
Slavery is a human stain, certainly not a southern one. no culture has ever had their hands entirely clean, except perhaps those who were being enslaved.
Simon: "Were there any Feds?"
mal: "No, no Feds, just an honest brawl between folk."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, there's no use in trying to tell Purplebelly your opinion. His/hers is apparently the only one that matters and the only one that is right. It is also apparent that he/she is very proud of their vocabulary skills because they like to put at least three big words that nobody uses in conversational speech in every sentence. Good for you for picking up a few books on your own when our centralized public school system is designed to fail.
Maybe he/she will be singing a different tune when he/she's working at WalMart, buying WalMart clothes because it's the only store that sells clothes, using the credit on his/her RFID chip "Real ID", which also doubles as a drivers license and passport, and living in a cashless society so every single purchase he/she makes is catalogued (just as the Bible said we would one day, not that I claim to be religious by any means).
Keep buying all of the foreign merchandise we consume in mass quantities in our throw-away society and tell yourself that WallStreet and NY are any better than your evil South for allowing third world exploitation and slavery. Like I said before... just because they're not black and just because they aren't slaving away in your back yard doesn't mean that we haven't enslaved countless more people to preserve the "American Way". I think your heart is in the right place, but your head is up your ass. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly86:
Whoops! Not your post - scratch that last comment, at least insofar as it applies to you. With a topic this long and coming so late to the forum, no wonder I get the authors mixed up. Sorry about that.
Think no more of it my friend.
Quote:
But while I disagree with you about the value of the antebellum Southern way of life in relation to the value of the lives of those who were exploited by it, you're definitely to express your opinion and I will also defend your right to do so. I'd like to let you know that I appreciate the fact that you would do the same for me.
We will have to agree to disagree I suppose. I do not believe the institution of slavery or its dissolution warranted the demise of the Southern way of life. The South is poorer for it's passing.
I would also point out that the South was not the only people to benefit from slavery. Many slaves were imported on ships owned by Northern businesses and entered the U.S. at Northern ports. Much coin wound up in the pockets of Northern man for the importation and sale of slaves. Northern states did not turn away goods picked or produced by slaves. If anything the exploitation of slaves is an American failing, not just the responsiblity of the South.
I appreciate your defense of my opinion and hope not to stress it too much.
Quote:
Also, it was not slavery that doomed the Confederacy to lose the war per se, but (and here I'm engaging in a kind of what-if history, so this is merely speculation on my part) given the public opinion within the Confederacy during the later years of the war and the actions of the CSA government in response (including declaration of martial law in several regions), it's no great leap of imagination to think there might have been a longer, more bitter civil war afterwards even if the Confederacy had won.
I agree. There was internal strife both sides of the Mason Dixon line in regards to the War and how it was handled. Both sides seemed convinced the fighting would be over after First Manassas. Civilians on neither side were prepared for four long bitter years of fighting or the toll it would take on the land, resources, or the people.
I have thought much on the aftermath had the South won her Independence and I think there would have been much tension between the US & CSA for at least for a couple of decades. I do think though that given time for the wounds to heal the two would have learned to live together, trade & diplomacy would have continued and both would have been better for it. Just my musings.
Quote:
And didn't you say that it was less that six percent of the CSA population that owned slaves? If so, there must have been plenty of free labour, white and black. And given the compensation for the slaves that were freed, the southern plantation owners would be able to hire the work they got for free for at least long enough to regain an economic equilibrium. Sure, there would have been a short-term hit in the profit-margin, but the economy need not have collapsed as hard as it did during the Reconstruction. It's unfortunate that the state governments were so short-sighted and lacking in creativity that they couldn't have found a better way.
No, it was not I that said 6% of Southerners owned slaves. I have read many figures, but it seems the average was somewhere around 18%. 6% is close to the figure of homes that owned more than one slave.
I am not certain I agree with your assessment that compensation for slaves would have allowed the hiring of labor sufficent to maintain the agrarian economy of the South. The number of slaves could not have been replaced easily or in any sort of short time span to keep crops from being lost. There simply was not a large enough population in the South to compensate for the sudden loss of slave labor. There was also the question of what to do with so many freed slaves. How would they live? Where would they live? How woul
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
I must disagree; The moral issue of slavery did indeed contribute to the Confederate's defeat; it was their refusal to foreswear their "peculiar institution" that caused European powers to deny recognition of the CSA as a legitimate nation. That lack of overseas allies--and the financial/logistical support they could have provided--was a major factor in the south's loss.
While slavery was not the only issue in the civil war, or even the primary cause of it, it was therefore a major factor in the failure of the Confederate cause.
And frankly, it deserved to be. Minus this issue, there was much to be said for the Confederacy. And the North certain wasn't a nation of angels when it came to human rights. But in the end, it was their failure to reject chattel slavery that doomed the antebellum way of life.
Slavery was a touchy issue at the time. England was no stranger to slavery, but had done away with the institution long before. France frowned upon it as well. Both of these European powers had strong ties to the South, traded with the South, and sympathized with her, but would not recognize them as a nation until it either freed the slaves or proved she could stand on her own against the Union. In this way, yes, slavery contributed to the fall of the CSA. The South had been led to believe by her would be allies that a major victory would be enough to cause one or both to enter the fray as mediators or support, hence the push into Maryland and Sharpsburg, then the ill fated push into Pennsylvania.
The blockade of ports and lack of necessary supplies, food, medicine, and arms was a major factor in the loss of the War. So too was the industrial might and larger population of the North.
__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/
http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
We must also keep in mind the basic cause of the bid by the South for Independence: determination of their own fate & future. They did not want people or government outside of their states dictating what they could or could not do. Like it or not, the people of the South did not want the abolitionists, Lincoln, or the federals telling them what to do.
Perhaps you've heard of Kant's 'principle of forfeiture'? Basically, Kant systematised his ethical system (the ethics of personal rights; the ethical system most people nowadays follow even without realising it) around the Golden Rule. Because other people have free will and moral agency, and we recognise the fact that we want our own free wills and moral agencies respected by others, we should treat others the same way we ourselves want to be treated. When in doubt, we should try to imagine what the world would be like if everyone treated everyone else in the way in question. But he had an exception. Where a person violates another person's free will, by killing them, by stealing from them, by lying to them or by enslaving them, their rights are forfeit in proportion to the crime they committed against the other person.
By my estimation according to this ethical system, the Radical Republicans then were fully within their rights to demand the cessation of slavery. In fact, it was their duty: the South wasn't demanding to determine its own fate and future alone, but also all the members of an entire societal caste, without any reference to them or to their own consciences. Now the South can not like this all it wants. When was the last time you saw a criminal say they wanted to go to jail, (to have their liberty violated, as it were) because they did something wrong? I view slavery as just such a crime; a societal one if not a personal one. But don't come to me saying that the South was only interested in preserving their own liberties and their own way of life, when so much more than that was at stake.
Now, before you come back at me with the stock replies: yes, I know there was slavery in more than one nation besides the CSA; yes, I know the North conspired in slavery for some time previously; yes, I know that the North was not warring for some altruistic, self-sacrificial purpose despite the propaganda to the contrary; yes, I know that most Southerners did not own slaves (my ancestors among them). But if you think that these an argument for the Confederacy make, you should have another think coming, my friend.
There's a book you should read, perhaps: Ed Ayers' 'In the Presence of Mine Enemies'. It shows what life was like in two border counties two years before the Civil War started up until Gettysburg. And it paints a very realistic, very gritty picture. Pre-war Democrats in the North were very similar to pre-war Democrats in the South, there were small farms on both sides, there were even people for and against slavery on both sides of the border between Pennsylvania and Virginia. Only difference was: Franklin County had no slaves and a significant freeman minority, whereas Augusta County had quite a few landowners and wealthy merchants who did own slaves.
When the war started, the people who had once thought similarly (the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats) began to think differently. The Northern Democrats put aside their defence of slavery and began to be the party that wanted to 'preserve the Union'. The Southern Democrats became even more adamant on 'their rights'. Several Southern Republicans had moved to Franklin pre-war, and became adamantly abolitionist, while several others joined the Democratic party and later the Confederacy.
When the Northern troops marched into the South, there was an awful lot of looting and general wartime mayhem that occured in every Southern city or village they passed through. Many of the Northern troops were lacking in discipline, being either green or hungry after the early defeats. Their behaviour was often less than admirable, leading the So
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME