sympathy for the Alliance?

POSTED BY: mincingbeast
UPDATED: Sunday, March 14, 2010 15:28
VIEWED: 5040
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

MINCINGBEAST

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 6:56 PM

It frustrates me that FF fans are called "Brown Coats," after the sartorially challenged, and utterly defeated, rebels. Why don't we call ourselves...Purple Bellies?

Sometimes I suspect that I might have supported unification, if I'd been given the chance, and that I actually sort of like the Alliance and what it stands for: prosperity, civilization, and progress. Granted, if you asked an Independent, they'd probably say it stands for something else entirely. They lost, though.

Perhaps this relates to my worrisome habit of drawing comparisons between the Confederates and the Brown Coats. Does anyone else ever feel that the Alliance is, perhaps, unfairly maligned? I mean, they don't make for interesting villains if they're all bad, right?

KPO

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 7:36 PM

Quote:
I actually sort of like the Alliance and what it stands for: prosperity, civilization, and progress.

The same could be said of communist China.

Heads should roll

ECGORDON

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Perhaps this relates to my worrisome habit of drawing comparisons between the Confederates and the Brown Coats.

And yet it is The Alliance that sanctions slaves.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 8:51 PM

Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name? Because puzzlin' you is the nature of my game.

I think even though Joss was inspired by depictions of the bloody misery and lack of food/medicine of the Civil War, that technically the Alliance, it's lords, and it's parliament are more British, and the Independents more American Revolutionaries. And Blue Sun is the East India Company.

I think that some malignant influences did stir up the Independents, because those interests wanted a war to hide what happened on Miranda. The time frame is too close together to be coincidential. Miranda was the REAL cause of the war. Though the whole resources versus manufacturing thing was a real bonus for the Alliance when they won and a partial motivation.

But basically I think the War was a cover up and a distraction. So, no, no side was technically in the right, but when the Independents claim to have been fighting for their sovereignty, I think that is true, so ideology wise I fall on the side of the browncoats.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 8:59 PM

I actually do feel that way.

I mean, Joss SORT OFF put the seal on their evil ways with the Pax, but I actually favor the theory of a conspirational minority faction within the Alliance government in the cahoots with the non-governmental Blue Sun as being the root of it all - not an entirely wrong/evil/bad Alliance concept.

I mean, from all we have seen, they are no Nazis (no Fuehrer, no nonsensical circular concept of "justice", no group-above-the-individual mentality - that we have seen) and I don't really see evidence of Communist China/Russia, either, if you don't count the teacher in the beginning of the movie as real (which I don't, too blunt). Though the conspirators may have pushed government surveilence (due to exaggerated post-war terrorist threats?) toward that direction by the time River was at the Academy.

I completely see why Mal would be mad at them for allegedly (probably actually) forcing Alliance rule on the independent planets, but we don't really know everything about the lead-up. How unanimous was the "vote" of the people on the independent planets to not join the Alliance? Was there investment in the planets by the alliance that justified their interest?

I don't have all the extra-canonical info from the books and games, though.

I do suspect I'm struggling against the overtly simplistic depiction that Joss may have had in mind. I like to give him the benefit of the doubt, though. If he'd had time to develop the series a bit more, maybe he would have allowed for less black/white and more grey areas, making Mal less RIGHT(tm) and more one side of a coin. It would have been incredibly satisfying to see the corruption within certain circles of the goverment uncovered and fought by actual pro-Alliance characters with no intention of dismantling the entire thing.

But then... Joss likes his doooooom too much. I suspect I would have been disappointed.

ETA: What Byte said about Miranda being the root of the war, I agree with that a lot.

MINCINGBEAST

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name? Because puzzlin' you is the nature of my game.

I think even though Joss was inspired by depictions of the bloody misery and lack of food/medicine of the Civil War, that technically the Alliance, it's lords, and it's parliament are more British, and the Independents more American Revolutionaries. And Blue Sun is the East India Company.

I think that some malignant influences did stir up the Independents, because those interests wanted a war to hide what happened on Miranda. The time frame is too close together to be coincidential. Miranda was the REAL cause of the war. Though the whole resources versus manufacturing thing was a real bonus for the Alliance when they won and a partial motivation.

But basically I think the War was a cover up and a distraction. So, no, no side was technically in the right, but when the Independents claim to have been fighting for their sovereignty, I think that is true, so ideology wise I fall on the side of the browncoats.

i have struggled, since exposed to firefly, to decide if the civil or revolutionary war is the better lens to view the 'verse through. never thought of the blue sun/east indies connection though. neato!

also, i am an absolute black and white thinker and shun nuance, and cannot accept that both were in the right and wrong at the same time.

if we use the civil war lens, the independents may have been fighting for their sovereignty, but the same could be said of the confederates. moreover, whos to say that the Independents don't own slaves, or practice slavery? also, the alliance can be framed as having fought to...preserve the union.

if we consider the revolutionary war as the proper lens, that complicates things nicely and triggers my latent anglophilia and desire to kiss a king's boots. the colonists, as we all know, revolted out of petulance and greed against their rightful masters....

misery and politics wise, the former just seems like a better fit. of course, its probably both as a lens, but like i said, i loathe nuance.

MINCINGBEAST

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 9:07 PM

kind of interesting proposal that miranda could be at the root of the war (which would also put "teh" reavers at the root of the war and mal's angst, and i absolutely love and admire "teh" reavers"), but it seems a little calculated. do people go to war to hide information? maybe to maintain control. i thought folks go to war because the strong rule wherever they can, and the weak endure whatever they must. still, worth some puzzlin' on.

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 10:02 PM

I do not necessarily agree w/ the comparison of the Brown coats / Alliance to the British / Colonies, though I could see how one might make the comparison.

Joss was inspired by the book "Killer Angels" and the main theme of states wanting to govern themselves free of a centralized government growing in power (and willingness to meddle) is a more direct comparison to the 'verse where we have planets on the rim who have been left to fend for themselves no longer willing to accept the "rule" of the Core that left them on their own.

Though the concept of the War being a cover up for Miranda is interesting, I don't think that is the case at all.

Do I think everyone in the Alliance is "evil" or has a hidden agenda? No, just as I don't believe that everyone in the Independents were necessarily good and had nothing but selfless intent.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

X.O. / Battalion O.I.C.

http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

http://76thbattalion.proboards.com

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 10:14 PM

Actually, I'd say the colonists (which the Alliance considers the border and rim worlds) opposed the British Empire because The East India Company found a way to back the Americans through the French, and the East India Company saw a business opportunity. So America became strongly capitalist to give corporate interests a safe haven. The "taxation without representation" thing was opposed so strongly because it was strangling business and eating up corporate profits, which instead went back to the motherland via taxes.

Why do I think so? Mostly because this was the East India Company Flag around the time of the American Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Quote:
The Grand Union Flag, also known as the Congress flag, the First Navy Ensign, the Cambridge Flag, and the Continental Colors, is considered to be the first national flag of the United States. This flag consisted of 13 red and white stripes with the British Union Flag of the time (prior to the inclusion of St. Patrick's cross of Ireland) in the canton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Union_Flag

Quote:
The design of the Grand Union flag is similar to the flag of the British East India Company (BEIC). Indeed, certain BEIC designs in use since 1707 (when the canton was changed from the flag of England to that of Great Britain) were identical, as the number of stripes varied from 9 to 15. That BEIC flags were potentially well known by the American colonists has been the basis of a theory of the origin of the Grand Union flag's design.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 10:36 PM

Originally posted by mincingbeast:

Quote:
Perhaps this relates to my worrisome habit of drawing comparisons between the Confederates and the Brown Coats. Does anyone else ever feel that the Alliance is, perhaps, unfairly maligned? I mean, they don't make for interesting villains if they're all bad, right?

Just out of curiosity what are the comparisons you're focussing on Mincingbeast?

I'd not be opting for unification as a rule. Whether I'd fight against it though is another matter.... I've often thought about where I would stand with this show in terms of my allegiance - I'm more of a Tracey type character. I'd become involved but I'd be indifferent, and removed from either cause really. Both struggles seemingly redundant if blood needs to be spilled. And I reckon that sort of naivete would mean I wouldn't last long in whatever regime prevailed.

You make a good point though about the Alliance not making interesting villains if they're always bad. Chances are had the show lasted Joss & Co would have thrown in some counterpoint...

Unfairly maligned though...? No. Not really.

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE