Is River a Slave?
POSTED BY: Nogard
UPDATED: Monday, January 11, 2010 19:39
VIEWED: 8457
PAGE 1 of 3
Just something I was wondering on. We know slavery is legal in the 'verse. The Alliance treats River like a piece of property Simon stole from them, and they're both labeled as fugitives.
It was my original impression that they were fugitives because Simon worked with the underground movement of rebels to get River out, and it's claimed that Simon and River are enemies of the state. However, then I was looking at scripts of some of the first episodes and noting the references to slavery, and then there's Blue Hand men calling River's abscondence a "theft". I made a quick Google search, but I couldn't find out one way or t'other.
Does this sound plausible, or is there evidence I'm missing that shows I'm mistaken?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No it's not slavery I will explain it to you.You see slavery is when you buy someone to do work for you like pick cotton and not pay them they didn't have her work they just eexspearmented on her so it was not slavery.I hope you understand now.
Ask me anything and i will have the answer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know what slavery is. I was wondering as to River's legal status or how the Alliance presents it following her escape. Slavery is people treated as property to be bought and sold, independent of what said people are made to do during their bondage. Presumably the owner of a slave could legally do whatever with them under the law of the Alliance.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's entirely possible they consider her a slave, or even something closer to non-human property. Dobson in the pilot refers to her as a 'precious commodity' and doesn't even seem bothered by the idea.
Brings up a few other questions, as well, regarding the Tams. There's much debate on whether they knew what was going down or were innocent victims. So. Was River 'sold' into slavery? Or did the Alliance simply start considering her brain their property after doing so much to enhance it?
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think she could be considered a slave.
As far as we know she was never bought or sold by anyone. She willingly went to the Academy, even if they did mislead her about their true intentions. If the experiments had been completed I imagine the Alliance would have used her for their own means.
She's definitely a kidnap victim of some kind and was held against her will but that doesn't make her a slave.
As for the Alliance 'presenting' itself then like all governmental bodies they will cover the real truth up. They could say River was a dangerous psycho or something and Simon was a fugitive because of helping her escape, as I'm sure the members of the underground movement are as well. They wouldn't need more than that because everyone in the know won't say anyhting and River and Simon obviously aren't going to say anything.
I do agree with the comment that they see River as property. They have invested time, money and probably training into developing her and they want her back.
"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
She's definitely a kidnap victim of some kind and was held against her will but that doesn't make her a slave.
Nope. She's a minor who's parents quite legally placed her in the custody of the Academy. Simon is a fugitive because he has kidnapped her from the Academy. I'm sure Mr Tam Senior will happily confirm that.
...at least, that's how any official orders, warrents, news reports etc. would describe the situation. I think we can assume that unofficial brain surgery, psychotic operatives & bounty hunters etc. are strictly off the record.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
River had all these amazing abilities and talents, so how come she wasn't able to escape from the Academy in 4 years?
River was not a slave. She was worse off than a slave. She was a guinea pig subject of in-human Nazi-type experimentation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
She's definitely a kidnap victim of some kind and was held against her will but that doesn't make her a slave.
Nope. She's a minor who's parents quite legally placed her in the custody of the Academy. Simon is a fugitive because he has kidnapped her from the Academy. I'm sure Mr Tam Senior will happily confirm that.
...at least, that's how any official orders, warrents, news reports etc. would describe the situation. I think we can assume that unofficial brain surgery, psychotic operatives & bounty hunters etc. are strictly off the record.
It was the experimental side of things that I was actually referring to with the kidnap comment. I should have made that clearer. River willingly went to the Academy (with parents permission) but I'm sure that would never have happened had they known the full truth. They all thought that she was going there to get the best education etc. At some point after arrival the situation changed. I was always under the impression that she wasn't immediately going for experiments, I would have assumed they would test her first in lesser ways to see what they really had. When they realised they had someone special the situation changed again and as soon as she was held against her will (and at some point she sent Simon the coded letters) she became a kidnap victim or a prisoner is probably a more accurate description.
Yes, Simon is a fugitive for helping to get her out and keeping her out but so is River for the actual escape. Simon didn't kidnap her though. She wasn't being forced to stay with him, she wanted out, so she became a fugitive herself.
On another note but still sort of on topic I always wondered what would have happened if River hadn't wanted to go or her parents didn't want her to. Would the Alliance/Academy have used another way to get her?
"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Nogard:
We know slavery is legal in the 'verse.
Do we? I recall evidence of contract labour in the 'verse, such that you could make an agreement to work for someone for X years, and then be required to keep your agreement, but not slavery as such.
I believe that Mal once made a reference to people he described as "slave-traders", but he may have been speaking metaphorically, and even if he was not, that would not show that slavery is legal in the 'verse. After all, Mal is a thief, but theft is not legal in the 'verse.
If the Alliance had a legal claim on River, they would probably have been prepared to act more openly in getting her back.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On that note, our own state department estimated back a few years ago that we have 30,000 slaves working here in the United States.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand BINARY, and those who don't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME