Pity the Reavers?

POSTED BY: ManiacNumberOne
UPDATED: Friday, March 5, 2004 23:21
VIEWED: 4851
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE

MANIACNUMBERONE

Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:39 AM

I can't find the thread I like that talked about Reavers, so I'm starting this new one.

In Bushwacked, when Mal is being questioned by the Alliance officer, the officer mentions that he hasn't seen torture like that (referring to the Reavers splitting of the tongue down the middle) since the war.

This made me think that Reavers are possibly a by-product of torture during the war. Now the Alliance guy in Bushwacked was pretty disgusted with that whole notion (of course he was new), so that makes me think that he prolly thought that such torture was done by the other side.

Now, I don't believe that Browncoats tortured anybody. It's very likely though that since the winners write history, all stories of Alliance doings during the war would have been retold to their advantage. My point being, the Alliance prolly did torture Browncoats, and then lied about doing it. No wonder Mal knows so much about them.

We don't know for how long the war went on either, do we? ...so that Alliance guy could have been referring to a very early part of the war. Anyway, it seems the result was that the people that they tortured eventually went mad and finally escaped. And we have Reavers... with notions of cutting on themselves in their madness because it had been done to them in torture. A common way for a victim to cope with abuse, is to take control of the abuse by abusing themselves.

SUCCATASH

Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
My point being, the Alliance prolly did torture Browncoats, and then lied about doing it.

Great thoughts. I wonder if Book was tortured, and that's why he's "more or less intact?" He probably just has one ball. It makes perfect sense, great ideas you have.

ASTRIANA

Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
I wonder if Book was tortured, and that's why he's "more or less intact?" He probably just has one ball. It makes perfect sense, great ideas you have.

And we're back to One-Ball Book, eh, Tash? LOL

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:42 PM

How did I know you'd be able to bring that into it, Tash?

SUCCATASH

Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:47 PM

I'm half-joking about one ball Book. But in all seriousness, Maniac, you've made some interesting observations and speculations. Thanks for posting this thread.

SHAMBLEAU

Monday, February 23, 2004 8:08 PM

As far as Maniacnumberone's opinion that the Browncoats didn't torture, I don't share it. We've seen a lot of the outer worlds and they're a varied lot. I'm assuming that most of those worlds fought with the Independents. Since the frontier worlds we've seen have been run by petty tyrants, religious zealots and aligarchies trying to reconstitute the nobility (Persephone), It's safe to say that not all of them would view torture in the same way. Nice as it would be to think that the Independent High Command kept them all in line, I don't think so.

shambleau

MANIACNUMBERONE

Monday, February 23, 2004 8:27 PM

Your opinion is valid, Shambleau. I agree that the outer worlds are varied, but I don't see any evidence that most of them joined the Independents in the War, nor do I see any evidence of the Independents torturing anyone. I believe lots of the worlds that we've seen shown so far in Firefly have supported the Alliance in the War, or at the least were split amongst themsleves on each planet. It is safe to say though that "not all of them would view torture in the same way."

I'd like to think that Browncoats motives were a little more honorable than Alliance ones though. Look at what each side was fighting for... their names say it all, browncoats wanted to remain free and to let others be free too, alliance wanted everyone under their rule. It seems like their goals tell the tale as to which side is the likelier to do any torture. Wouldn't you agree?

Like you say, some of the outer worlds are run by petty tyrants or the like. But are the Independents somehow responsible for the outer worlds present state? Shouldn't taking care of outer rim worlds (theoretically) be the job of the winning side... the Alliance? Any problems on those outer worlds like tyrants, bands of thieves and the like are the duty of the alliance to quash are they not?

CARDIE

Monday, February 23, 2004 9:06 PM

When there is prolonged civil conflict, you're going to run into atrocities committed by both sides. The situations and the emotions they bring out will push those with tendencies to be torturers to act on those tendencies, and I don't think that has anything to do with whether you believe in a Federal system with centralized control or in each world being its own little fiefdom. We've seen good and bad in the Firefly 'verse from both sides of the Alliance-Independent divide.

While I agree that the Alliance seems to have totalitarian tendencies, there's nothing in the name itself to suggest that. An alliance is an entity formed when various powers freely consent to combine forces for their own mutual benefits.

Cardie

MANIACNUMBERONE

Monday, February 23, 2004 9:20 PM

You make good points too. And while I believe both sides were capable of torture, I still believe the Alliance to be much more capable. The Blue Sun Corp. should be some evidence of their ideals after the war.

But I didn't want to keep arguing that anyway.
I bet we won't convince each other.

My main point in this thread was that the Reavers are very possibly the result of that torture, regardless of who did it to them. We should pity the Reavers.

SUCCATASH

Monday, February 23, 2004 9:41 PM

1 2 NEXT PAGE