IMDB comments

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Really, I think there are a lot of historical correction and reinterpretation going on as well. Yes, those are the things that happened in the past; and we surely despise and disapprove of those kinds of ideas nowadays. But were those ideas truly *bad* back then?

---

Yes. Britain and France had done away with the practice altogether. The American government was restricting the addition of new slave states with an eye to phasing the practice out completely and, let's not ever forget that the nation itself was almost stillborn because of the South's refusal to agree that keeping african slaves was hypocritial if you going to war over issues of Freedom. Does the phrase "Peculiar Institution" ring any bells?

No one is "revising" anything. In fact this whole "they didn't know any better back then" stuff is the real modern twist. There was an ongoing debate about the practice pretty much from its inception.

Quote:

---

Let's face it, I am not necessarily a revisionist or do I think it's ok to excuse them, nor do I think we should do those things today (or at all). Clearly, every single civilization had slaves in the past (some still do today), it's a matter of capital and economics.

---

That's a very facile and immature construct. Slavery, previous to the inception of American Chattel Slavery, was a function of conquest and was neither generational nor based upon ethnicity.

It was the European/American addition of "racial inferiority" as a component and the mechanization of the process which differentiated American Chattel Slavery from what had gone before.

Quote:

---

And let's not talk about caste systems that exist today.

---

Oh please. There's no comparisson. None. That's like saying a guy not being able to catch a cab is the same as getting lynched or whipped to death.

Quote:

---

We can learn from history without beating those folks over it - because those poor sod are exactly like you and me, completely clueless that every single action we do today will be reinterpreted years from now.

---

Uh. Nope. Those "poor sods" were no differnt than any Nazi. They weren't ignorant. They were in willful opposition to the thrust of Western society at the time. And damned proud of it.

Quote:

---

Learn and move on.

---

Back atcha, Kiddo.

Still




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

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

Ok, now we've switched arguments from plain slavery to "racially inferior". Neither of which are unique to the American culture. Every "race" has a favorite "others" to pick on. Every nation has their own set of scapegoats. There isn't anything new. I don't disagree that Americans brand of slavery took a twist in the populate media. But to say that all types of slavery aren't racially motivated prior to the new World is .... hmmmm

I am not only saying that we are revising/reinterpreting what happened and casting with our own ethics is bad in a big judgemental way (if it new, it's new, I don't particularly care about that part) - and don't get me wrong, if it's wrong, it's wrong - I am saying that we are no better Joes than any of those slobs as far as knowing what is right and wrong. Nothing will change today, what we do today will again be interpreted by people who don't realize that it's a time wasting exercise to keep blaming people for doing what they don't know and to keep judging and labeling them. They did something wrong by our standards - ok. So, let's not do it ourselves and move on.

Rather than saying, "those are horrible bad man/woman, let's dig up their graves and put them thru the grinder". We will never learn if we just learn them as *them*... They are as much us as we are them. B/C someday very very soon. We will be *them* too. and the cycle of blame continues, absolutely no learning whatsoever.

No really...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Redjack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Really, I think there are a lot of historical correction and reinterpretation going on as well. Yes, those are the things that happened in the past; and we surely despise and disapprove of those kinds of ideas nowadays. But were those ideas truly *bad* back then?

---

Yes. Britain and France had done away with the practice altogether. The American government was restricting the addition of new slave states with an eye to phasing the practice out completely and, let's not ever forget that the nation itself was almost stillborn because of the South's refusal to agree that keeping african slaves was hypocritial if you going to war over issues of Freedom. Does the phrase "Peculiar Institution" ring any bells?

---

No, I meant the 4000 thousand years before that. Why does everyone think History itself began with the American Revolution? There is a huge long track record for slavery (not justifing it, not "oh, they did it, so it's ok", just saying that there has been a huge long history of people doing exactly that without recognizing that it was wrong.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Redjack:


No one is "revising" anything. In fact this whole "they didn't know any better back then" stuff is the real modern twist. There was an ongoing debate about the practice pretty much from its inception.

Quote:

---

Let's face it, I am not necessarily a revisionist or do I think it's ok to excuse them, nor do I think we should do those things today (or at all). Clearly, every single civilization had slaves in the past (some still do today), it's a matter of capital and economics.

---

That's a very facile and immature construct. Slavery, previous to the inception of American Chattel Slavery, was a function of conquest and was neither generational nor based upon ethnicity.

It was the European/American addition of "racial inferiority" as a component and the mechanization of the process which differentiated American Chattel Slavery from what had gone before.

---

hmmm... I don't think the Americans invented racial inferiority on top of Slavery either. Also, "racial inferiority" as a concept was definitely not limited to Africans as slaves either. The target for inferiority spanned a wide range and the focus rolled over from the Irish, to the Italians, to the Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, what have you. In every case, it was the threat of economy and new voter ship that drove the designation for inferiority race. For a brief period durin

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

That's a good thought too. And probably a much fairer system than "the latest get to the top" deal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Crowflyy:
Went back to check that IMDB site and it seems a different review is posted.I looked through a bunch of the reviews posted and they all do seem pretty positive. I wonder if the site rotates through all the reviews and posts them randomly, because the one showing today is from Jan 8, and many have been posted since. Just a thought.

Crow

---

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

I just want to say to all those people who told me that Firefly was a good series...you were WRONG...it is a GREAT series. I am studying for the NY bar, and it has gotten me this far...unfortunately, I have no more episodes to watch.

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Ok, now we've switched arguments from plain slavery to "racially inferior".

---

Not at all. They are part of the same evil. You can't discuss the one without coming to the other in short order. Well. You can try but people will tend to notice.

Quote:

---

Every "race" has a favorite "others" to pick on.

---

Well, isn't that a comfortable fiction? Not every group even adhered to the concept of Race until Europeans introduced it across the globe. Indeed, not every group adhered AFTER they had it inflicted upon them. This is partly because it has no basis in biology but is merely a social construct. It's not something that ALL human societies came up with independantly and, in fact, most of our time on Earth, we've done without it.

This is a carved in stone fact. Don't take my word for it. Delve.

Quote:

---

I don't disagree that Americans brand of slavery took a twist in the populate media. But to say that all types of slavery aren't racially motivated prior to the new World is .... hmmmm

---

It's accurate. The concept of "race" didn't even exist until the Renaissance. Tribes aren't analogs for race.

Quote:

---

I am saying that we are no better Joes than any of those slobs as far as knowing what is right and wrong.

---

Crap. Many of us are loads better. We have their disgusting example as another signpost of what not to do and where not to go. Your moral relativist pose is another facile dodge and allows you to avoid having to put your feet down on this.

If we- and by we I mean intelligent people who get their history from someplace other than Hollywood distillations– weren't any better there'd be something wrong with us. Humans survive by learning from past mistakes.

Quote:

---

and the cycle of blame continues, absolutely no learning whatsoever.

---

"The cycle of blame." Wow.

Well. Never let a few facts get in the way of cartoon dogma.

Quote:

---

No, I meant the 4000 thousand years before that. Why does everyone think History itself began with the American Revolution?

---

I don't think that "everyone" does. I don't and never implied otherwise. I'm talking about the U.S. because that's the history FIREFLY supposedly mined for its motifs.

The continuity of slavery no more connects to what happened here than the history of conquest leads inevitably to German gas chambers. The latter motivations were different in both cases. So different, in fact, as to have created something new.

Hence the shock normal humans feel when comparing the two.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Redjack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve580:
Hey, and let's not forget, the South wasn't exactly 'evil'. I mean, if it was a show that made the Nazis seem like heros, that'd be one thing; they were evil.

---

I'm really intesested in what a society would have to do to qualify as evil in your mind.

Quote:

---

The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.

---

That's one of the most frightening things I've ever read in my life.

Quote:

---

I'm not a southerner, by the by, nor am I one of those guys who drives a pick-up with a Rebel flag on the back. I just understand what they were fighting for, and why, and I can't say that they were wrong.
-Steve

---

Then you don't have a problem with a society which was entirely based upon and fueled by the generational exploitation of human beings as livestock and labor saving devices.

The Confederay WAS evil. Any way you slice it. It was antithetical to everything the United States was and, more importantly, IS supposed to stand for.

There is no difference between the Confederacy and the Nazi regime. Aside from being about a century apart (providing the Nazis with better tools) their world veiws were essentially the same.

And to describe them as fighting for "freedom" is to completely fail to grasp history. The Articles of Confederation alone refute your assessment.

The issue was "States Rights." What right was being contested? The "right" to own and trade, rape, kill and otherwise degrade human beings.

Yeah. Them poor Rebs was wicked misunderstood.

But not by me.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

---

I would just like to point out that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war weren't fighting to keep slavery but for what they considered State's Rights. Slavery was always an issue but it has always somehow buried the rest of the issues for why the war fought. Another thing was that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war never owned a slave, would never own a slave, and had come from farms they worked themselves. Usually the wealthy and wealthy middle class Confederates owned slaves and most of them were able to get enough of an education to be high ranking officers. I would also like to point out that a lot of the Confederacy's greatest Generals were also against the institution of slavery but saw the infringement of the State's Rights as a greater and more deadlier evil than slavery at the time. And many Confederates fought because there homes were being invaded by what they considered a foreign army. There were alot more issues involved in the American Civil War than just slavery and slavery should never bury the other issues. I would also like to remind you all that the Union fought the war to 'Preserve the Union' not end slavery. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the States that were in rebellion and that was done to hurt the South's economy but lost Lincoln a lot of support in the North which led to the draft and then later the draft riots, some violent (ie. New York City as seen in 'Gangs of New York' at the end'). There were still slave states that did not leave the Union and join the Confederacy. In fact, Kentucky even joined the Union after at first declaring themselves neutral.

And with that, I would urge you all to study American Civil War history. After picking up many books written by American Civil War scholars you will learn that the issues and the war itself wasn't as black and white as you were taught in school. There were heroes and villians on both sides and each side had its own good points and evil.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

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