Evil Firefly Haters
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 07:06
VIEWED: 55301
PAGE 11 of 20
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