Browncoats... good guys or not?
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:07
VIEWED: 33379
PAGE 6 of 12
Quote:Well, that sounds like the rationalization we were taught in school and the one you often hear on the TV. If you want my opinion - the Natives were demonized as savage for the soal reason of convincing poor immigrents that it's OK to steal thier land, kill them, or anything else. That way no one feels bad about being evil and the Natives are convinced it's thier fault.
Originally posted by IrisAnne:
It occurs to me that Joss deals in archetypes. The Reavers are a symbol of our dark, primal selves. And maybe the Europeans who first came to North America projected the same archetype onto the inhabitants because they didn't understand them. "Savage" is just a manifestation of our own darkness and ignorance, and it's a powerful theme in storytelling. It taps right into our deepest fears about the world and about ourselves.
It's not that white men speak with a forked tongue - it's that they are evil murderers and thieves.
Quote:Yea, this is the ancient 'fear of the other' mixed with the fear of the unknown. Powerful stuff but I'm not sure what place it has in this big Firefly cosmology.
My blood ran cold when they first encountered the Reavers and Wash said, "Oh God oh God oh God..." What a scary and wonderful moment!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
But to a large extent, it ain't relevant to what folks were doing on the other side of the Mississippi 5 to 10 years afterwards.
Agreed with nearly everything in that post but the above.
Relevance, on that score, depends on what color your skin was ten or fifteen years after. Or twenty or thirty or eighty.
Nearly 100% of the Western townships founded by former slaves where burned to the ground and/or had their citizens killed by ex Rebs who couldn't bear the sight of their relative success. Those that weren't were destroyed by economic means.
The James Gang (former Quantrell(sp) associates) and several other such Gentlemen's clubs ran roughshod over the various territories, committing violent robberies and slaughtering people pretty much at will partly because they still had issues over how the war played out.
And let's not forget about the poor "Native Americans" who had the misfortune of being in the way of these new settlers whose tolerance for their skin color and lifestyle was even lower based upon recent experiences.
Night Riders, White Knights, Ku Klux Klan etc. all these were groups formed after War's End by folks who couldn't put the war's outcome down. Many still haven't.
I think the real similarity only exists in the basic anarchy enjoyed by the Outer Worlds which serve as a loose proxy for the Old West.
On that, I think, we all agree.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Makes me wonder what the Reavers are really like.
All our knowledge of them is based on half-glimpses and speculation. We see the boy in "Bushwhacked" go mad and become one, but the only reason we have for that is Mal's one.
We also have no idea what their society is like. I'd lay money Joss is going to pull a double-blind on that one, and just as he made Demonic Society in Buffy multi-faceted and varying, we will find out that there are different types of Reavers.
My guess is that they are a tribal society, with warriors and clans, and that the reason is multilate their victims is far more complex than just being simply crazy. Celts took the heads of their enemies as a sign of respect for a great warrior. The Romans called them barbarians, but to Celtic society this was a way of showing respect to a defeated warrior.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ Interesting. But my guess is that the Reavers are more reputation than actual culture. That is, I suspect they are a myth maintained by someone with an agenda. Assuming there's a good reason to make people afraid of going too deep into 'the Black'.
Zoe's speach about getting raped to death struck me as legend, not fact.
But I digress..., regarding the Browncoats again: I noticed the posts getting deep into the history of the historical Rebel Army and thier actions, etc. (all great to read!) and I remembered one of the most important rules of Westerns - historically accurate westerns are always failures. The American desire to romantisize that period is as strong as the French making on that medieval knights were not murderous tyrants. They were! 
So, I have to throw out that Firefly presents the Browncoats/rebels rather like every other western since John Wayne put on a dress - as romantic anti-heros.
Sure, I get annoyed when history is re-written by yet another American myth. Well, at least Firefly doesn't try to present the real thing (such as a Clint Eastwood movie like Josey Wales) but keeps the romance.
I'd be giving Joss big kudos should he manage to present the Browncoats as dastardly as the Alliance ever could be. Maybe worse. You know, I'm of the belief that Mal needs his pat and fragile beliefs kicked out of him once more. Mal may have lost a few delusions but he's got a looooong way to go before he finds real Serenity. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Good post, however, I would like to offer a bit of counterpoint.
A man with a gun in your face is a more pressing problem than a congress critter back at the capitol. A man with a gun and a badge is even more problematic, whether what the man with the badge is doing is legal or not.
All the cops we've seen to date, with the exception of the sheriff in "Train Job" were detached from their regular commands, and operating independently. How much of their actions were sanctioned, we don't know.
Your points are well made.
but they bring to my mind the question: What kind of people does the Alliance hire to enforce their "author-i-tye," and how much slack do they give them? Could be the sheriff in "Train Job" was sent to a remote outpost that has a serious health problem because he wasn't heavy handed enough. In short, perhaps he was "exiled."
These are very intersting topics.
I also have an attitude which should give you an insight into my own perspective. And that is my antagonism toward government ... any government! Someone said it once: "Government always grows to the maximum level the people can tolerate." Or as a friend of mine put it: "Freedom good ... Government Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad!"
Quote:
Whether Dobson was there to bring River back, because it was his job, or if he were freelancing for the Blue Hand Crew, again, insufficient data. Heck if you think about it, we have no idea what Dobson was going to do after he caught River. Whether he was just going to pack her back to the lab, or take her somewhere else and use her as a material witness to bring down the BHC.
I think Dobsons statement that River was a valuable property eliminates the possibility that she was going anywhere but back to be experimented upon. Makes me kinda wonder about any government -- or other entity for that matter -- which treats human beings as property.
Quote:
The problem with ruling the world, or the universe, is that there is a lot of stuff that can fall through the cracks. While you are worrying about trade quotas between Ariel and Shinon, someone is going around setting postal clerks on fire. That is a problem with any kind of centralized government that tries to rule too large a territory.
To me, that's a problem with any government ... period. Especially one that tries to "rule!" Whether it is a galaxy, or a country, or a state, county, or city, the result is the same. As Princess Lea put in Star Wars IV, "The more you tighten your grip, the more they slip through your fingers."
Quote:
So what I am saying is that we really don't know if the Alliance is as bad as all that, or if because of travel distance, it has too many loose cannons wandering around, making it look badder than it is.
I view government the same way government today views us ... guilty until proven innocent.
Load and make ready!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
LoadAndMakeReady wrote:
Slightly off topic: What difference was there between the Colonists who seceeded from the British Empire, and the Confederates who tried to seceed from the United States? I'm really curious. Because as I see, it the Federal Government was doing exactly the same thing to the Southern States as Britain was doing to the Colonies.
Quote:
Browncoat1 replied:
Depends on who you ask really. Ask most people, especially those from the North, they will say there is no comparison. They will cite abolishing slavery as the reason for their invasion of the South. Ask someone from the South, they will tell you they were fighting for states rights, independence, and to protect their homes from what they saw as an invading army. Matter of perception, what they were taught, and what they believe.
As far as the Civil War is concerned, slavery was NOT the issue. There were 15 slave states, only 11 of them seceeded. Washington DC was slave. In fact the capitol building -- which was being built at the time -- was built with slave labor. The war started in 1861, the emancipetion proclamation was issued in 1863, and only "freed" the slaves in states that were still in secession. Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia itself were still "slave" -- until the thirteenth amendment in 1865.
By the way, tens of thousands of Union Soldiers deserted when they heard of the Emancipation Proclamation -- they believed they were fighting for the Union, not to free slaves.
The primary reason the Southern States seceeded was the Morrill Tarriff, which doubled existing tarriffs at the time. Tarriffs were the primary source of revenue for the "federal" government at the time, and they were collected almost exclusively from the southern states -- and spent in the north.
In short, the Federal government was doing to the south exactly the same thing that England was doing to the colonies. They wanted to keep them as a cheap source of raw materials, and a captive market for expensive finished goods. The Southerners -- and the Colonists -- wanted to trade on the world market, at world market prices. (Little known fact: John Hancock was a "smuggler!")
Quote:
As far as the comparisons of the Alliance, I have always seen them as a sort of central, expansionist government gone amok. They remind me somewhat of an occupying army when you see soldiers on the street in episodes. They watch everyone, seem to be suspicious of everyone, and the display of military arms seems meant to intimidate the populace into compliance.
A central, expansionist government IS a government gone amok!
Quote:
I feel the Alliance is meant to portray the all powerful, corrupt government that many people fear could happen in our day and time.
Looking at "Homeland Security," and the "Patriot Act," I think it has already happened!
Quote:
The way the Alliance is shown as a military/peace keeping force and their heavy handed tactics in enforcing the will of the government is what the forefathers of our country feared and why they were anti-Federalists.
After the Colonies seceeded, most Americans wanted a "Federation" -- thirteen "free and independent States," united under a sort of mini-UN.
Those who wanted a strong central government -- the British system, without Britain -- called themselves "Federalists" in order to label those who actually wanted a Federation as "Anti-Federalists. Seems to have worked!
Quote:
The original colonies broke away from England because they saw that an all powerful, central government did not work for the people, but rather exploited them.
It was never intended to work for the people. Ultimately, the end purpose of government, is government!
Quote:
The Browncoats are meant to represent the common men and women who lived out in the remote areas of Alliance controlled space. The people of these remote coloniesNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
How about quarantine?
Even today, quarantine is more an excuse than a reason for restrictions. The posibility that this would be a problem in the 25th Century is in my mind, negligable. YMMV
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Several points -
1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.
A: Why is the cargo illegal? Usually to "protect" the profits of a politically connected business interest.
B: To avoid taxes? All taxation is theft!
C: Stolen from whom? In one sense, you can't steal from a government, because the government got whatever it did with money that was stolen from you!
Quote:
2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.
"Society in any state is a blessing, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one..."
Thomas Paine
It is government which created Corporations -- if the Corporations are out of "control," then who is to blame? To me, it all boils down to government enforcing the desires of certain politically-connected special interests. Ultimately, government is still the problem.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."
Quote:
3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton
Keep a government poor and weak, and it will be your servant. Let it get rich and powerful, and it will be your master.
Is there any doubt what kind of government the Alliance is?
To me, the very idea that a government would fight to maintain "control" of other people is the truest sign that the government does NOT have the best interests of those people at heart.
Or as Lysander Spooner put it: "no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly on voluntary support."
Quote:
And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out there - as with any system, power will go to people's heads, and I'm sure that /especially/ on the border planets, you have people using their fed power for their own means, and to terrorize. But that's an individual trait - not neccessarily a trait of the government, which I still contend was simply bulky and overly bueacratic - not evil.
So, you side with the Alliance against the Browncoats?
loadandmakeready
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:Quote:
Several points -
1) People smuggle all the time, for a million different reasons - the most noteable are to move illegal cargo and to avoid goverment interference through such things as taxes. The prescence of smuggling does not an authoritarian government make. Heck - how many people go through US customs and just 'forget' to declare everything they've bought, because they don't want to PAY? Technically, that's smuggling. Throw in a few cows, and it's the same thing on a larger scale. Make the good stolen, and you're doing it to avoid a fine or jail sentence.
A: Why is the cargo illegal? Usually to "protect" the profits of a politically connected business interest.
B: To avoid taxes? All taxation is theft!
C: Stolen from whom? In one sense, you can't steal from a government, because the government got whatever it did with money that was stolen from you!
well, let's not be so noble. People smuggle because there is profit to be made. There are always things worth smuggling that the rest (most of the rest anyways) of society despise. Porn, liquor, ciggies, lego-blocks, whatever. If it's not something, it's another.
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Quote:
2) I think it's been made pretty clear that it was Blue Sun doing those experiments, and that most of the Alliance had NO IDEA what they wanted River for. Witness the men killed just for speaking to her in Ariel. Witness the officer who doesn't even know if they want her alive or dead, and so orders them to shoot first (Bushwacked, I /think/.) Again, the horrific actions of a few does not make the entirity evil. I tend to think that's Blue Sun's control of the Alliance at work there, not the Alliance itself.
"Society in any state is a blessing, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one..."
Thomas Paine
It is government which created Corporations -- if the Corporations are out of "control," then who is to blame? To me, it all boils down to government enforcing the desires of certain politically-connected special interests. Ultimately, government is still the problem.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."
Quote:
3)Accusing the postal clerk.. um. Ok. Recall how that lawman was working a tad illegally, chasing down some precious cargo he himself was smuggling? I hardly think we can use him as a shining example of a typical Alliance lawman. As a matter of fact, I never ever in the watching of the episode bought him as a legitimate one, for that exact reason - he uses the same terroristic methods that Niska's men do. He's not acting in his capacity as a lawman in that episode - he's exploiting it.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton
Keep a government poor and weak, and it will be your servant. Let it get rich and powerful, and it will be your master.
Is there any doubt what kind of government the Alliance is?
To me, the very idea that a government would fight to maintain "control" of other people is the truest sign that the government does NOT have the best interests of those people at heart.
Or as Lysander Spooner put it: "no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly on voluntary support."
Lysander Spooner, again. It might be true of some governments in our world, but why do some people keep believing that our government is runned with a programmed and specific determination towards malice - is it just me or the militant radicals in Montana?
Really, at best, it's the Keystone cops - complete incompetents and just randomly screwing things up, at worst, a bunch of monkeys - baffoons trying to do things, but all thumbs.
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Quote:
And finally, I'm not saying there aren't bad feds out tNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh boy! Libertarianism vs. Communitarianism!
Seems to me the Reavers are at one extreme end of the spectrum and Blue Sun at the other, with the Independent and the Alliance falling in at different levels.
Mal can be pretty authoritarian when it comes to Serenity, his little piece of the sky. The Alliance has claimed a much larger piece, undoubtedly with the best intentions (and all the proverbial paving that goes with it). Mal gives his crew a choice; they can take it or leave it, even in the middle of deep space. The Alliance gives you a choice too, stay in 'civilized' space and follow their rules or leave.
As a jaded, bitter man I don't see much difference between the Reavers or the Alliance. Everybody has the 'right' to do whatever they have the 'power' and the 'will' to get away with. Anarchy all the way, the Reavers have a physical anarchy and the Alliance have a social anarchy.
I don't think it matters how power is organized, it matters how it is used, which implies decisions by individuals. A tyrant can be a good man and a democrat can be a bad one. The efficiency or inefficiency of scale is not really a moral question.
"Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -- Frank Herbert
In summation, there are members of both the Alliance and the Independents who are choose to do the right thing and members who choose to do the wrong thing. The majority of both sides choose what is in their best interest, rationalizing away any doubts or guilt they have. One plus for the Reavers is that they probably don't suffer from this failing.
Arawaen
P.S. Jaded and Bitter I tell ya'!
"Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm angry. And I'm armed."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME