Evil Firefly Haters

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 07:06
VIEWED: 55301
PAGE 12 of 20

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

LORDJ

Friday, January 2, 2004 4:07 PM

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.

ARRGHYLE

Friday, January 2, 2004 4:35 PM

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.

WZ

Friday, January 2, 2004 5:28 PM

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

NICOLACLARKE

Friday, January 2, 2004 5:42 PM

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."

WZ

Friday, January 2, 2004 6:08 PM

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

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Friday, January 2, 2004 6:28 PM

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."

WZ

Friday, January 2, 2004 7:10 PM

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

WZ

Friday, January 2, 2004 7:19 PM

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

WZ

Friday, January 2, 2004 7:55 PM

Evil double post.

WZ

Friday, January 2, 2004 7:56 PM

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

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE