Historical references in Firefly
POSTED BY: DontCallMeLawrence
UPDATED: Thursday, March 30, 2006 00:19
VIEWED: 8061
PAGE 2 of 3
Also, in Jaynestown (the title itself seems to be a reference to Jamestown), the mudders are called "indentured servants": when people first started to settle in the colonies, they needed more people to work in the fields. A lot of Europeans were too poor to afford to take a boat to America, so the settlers paid their journey, and in exchange these poor people had to work in the fields during 5 or 7 years without getting paid. They were called indentured servants. This system worked for a while, but the indentured servants were treated so badly that they ended up rioting. Afterwards, nobody wanted to have indentured servants anymore, so they had to find another way to make people work in the fields without having to pay them, and that's when they started to make Black people come from Africa and to use them as slaves.
So these mudders in Jaynestown are probably people who come from an even crappier planet than that one, who wanted to go to Boros but didn't have the money to do so, and who work there to repay their "spaceship ticket".
"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eatin' steak"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DontCallMeLawrence:
And now the big question...
... How valid is a future that so mirrors the post civil war west. Could it happen?
Most everyone is familiar with the idea that history travels in cycles. This is incorrect. History is a series of interconnected events which flow from previous occurances to form a web of unique instances. The cyclical appearance of history occurs only because people focus in on a particular series of events and their aftermath, ignoring the bigger picture. What remains the same is humanity, and the fact that when faced with same issues we react in similar ways. Therefore, given a set of circumstances in the future resembling the post civil war west, we would likely react in a similar fashion. This is currently happening in the world today, look at states with weak governmental control, especially Somolia.
Hell. It's special.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some of you guys might think this is stupid. Others, maybe there is something to this: Towards the end of "Serenity," Zoe moves forward of the line while firing at all the reavers coming into the room. Jayne calls her back after she kills a few bad guys, but they keep pouring in of course. Though maybe just a microcosm of something that happened at the battle of Gettysburg, which we all know how much Joss W. seems to have been influenced by; Gen. Dan Sickles similarly moved all his troops forward on the second day of battle, leaving an enormous gap in the Union line despite repeated orders to move back and close the hole. Detailed accounts of Gettysburg will often cite this as one of the big Union errors of that day. Also like Zoe, Sickles was seriously wounded.
Now, not to harp on Zoe. Wash had just died and she was obviously taking out some revenge on the reavers. But, people often wonder what the hell Gen. Sickles was doing when he brought all of his troops forward. Maybe things were getting personal for his union troops. They ought to have been, I suppose. They were all finally fighting in Union territory.
That's just my two cents. And, I have watched "Serenity" way too much.
"I aim to misbehave."
SerenityShadow
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DontCallMeLawrence:
shiny!
some fellow buffs.
Does anyone know if Joss has confirmed that The Battle of Serenity Valley was based on Gettysburg?
I don't believe that Joss has ever come out and "officially" said that the Battle of Serenity Valley mirrors the Battle of Gettysburg, but the similarities are too stark to think it could be otherwise. For the Independents the Battle of Serenity Valley was key to their fight for independence. The loss of that battle was pivotal to their defeat at the hands of the Alliance. The same is true of Gettysburg. The Confederacy needed a large victory in the Eastern theatre to prove to England & France that she could win the war, hoping they would officially recognize her & offer to mediate a peaceful end to hostilities. The loss at Gettysburg marked the end of hopes for European intervention and for the most part the hopes of a Confederate victory in the war.
__________________________________________
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/
http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think some of the posts are overthinking this a tad. I agree that Firefly is more Old West then post Civil War. Admittedly, the romance of a "lost cause" is there, but it is more of a general reaction to being hemmed in, to civilization heading west.
This is particularly true in the total downplaying of the military leadership in Firefly. Much of Lost Cause lore is worship of the great leaders, of defending ones State against the Union. But in what we got to see of Firefly, it was all individuals, the leadership was useless, folks seemed to be fighting more for their own personal independance, then for any particular colony or governing structure.
On some particular points - since Joss read Killer Angels, I think the Reynolds connection might be a good bet, the Chamberlain - Lawrence Dobson seems a stretch.
The Sickles thing is a stretch too, Zoe was all about avenging her man. By the way, there are folks who believe Sickles forward movement had merit, they bled the Confederates, reducing their elan before defending the position that must be held. I agree Sickles the idiot is the majority opinion.
On the comment that a victory at Gettysburg could have led to European recognition, I disagree. Those hopes were dashed in Maryland at the Battle of Sharpsburg 10 months before. Not only was Lee sent South there for the first time, but Bragg was stopped in the West as well. This gave Lincoln the clout to make the Emancipation Proclamation, and this finished Southern hopes of recognition. Once the war became about slavery, and the South became the only western nation clinging to slavery (putting aside vestiges of Serfdom in the Russian Empire) Europe could no longer choose the side of their market and raw material supplier, but had to stay out, England and France, the only countries that truly matter in this analysis could not intervene, offically, for slavery. Furthermore, a victory at Gettysburg would still have cost lives the South could not afford, and Vicksburg would still have fallen the next day.
See how I'm not punching him, I think I've grown!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Shepard
What remains the same is humanity, and the fact that when faced with same issues we react in similar ways. Therefore, given a set of circumstances in the future resembling the post civil war west, we would likely react in a similar fashion.
Well said. As an historian and an anthropologist I wholeheartedly agree. History appears to go in cycles because basic human nature doesn't change much and we keep doing the same things to one another. We learn from our "mistakes" and repeat them anyway.
I had friends who had problems with the "backwardness" of some of the behavior on the rim planets in "Firefly." They didn't think it was realistic in light of how "civilized" we are now and where we would be in 500 years. I pointed out that many a pioneer family left a pretty civilized existence in the East to go West where they frequently lost the trappings of polite society when faced with the harsh realities of practical survival.
If the two dominant cultures in the 'verse are China and the US, then you would expect colonization to follow these cultural models. For example, I can see a religious sect moving to a planet where they will be tolerated and becoming more and more insular and dissimilar from the "dominant" culture are time goes on. Or a bunch of survivalists moving to a marginal planet where they think they won't be interfered with. Maybe that is why we didn't see many Asians in the parts of the 'verse the crew frequented. It was just too Western!
Thank you Joss Whedon for giving us something to chew on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What an interesting thread!
As it happens, me and mine just returned from a sojourn to Gettysburg and Antietam. We are "Mainiacs" and Bowdoin grads, so of course, we made a pilgrimage to Little Round Top. The kids got a big kick out of finding the name Jubal Early on one of the markers!
A point of interest about the Battle of Gettysburg, key turns in the three day battle occur in the matter of minutes, i.e. someone arrives in the nick of time, Buford holding the Ridge until Reynolds can arrive, the Alabamians arriving from a long march to move right into battle.
I think Mal has a quote in Bushwacked in which he says he fought on the losing side, not the wrong side. It reminds me why I like this show - there are no good guys or bad guys, there's just folk, full of the foibles and failings that humans have. I liked Babylon5 for that reason too - there were just two different points of view, not necessarily a right one and a wrong one.
All I can say here is, visit the battlefield. It is truly "awesome".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by weichi:
On the comment that a victory at Gettysburg could have led to European recognition, I disagree. Those hopes were dashed in Maryland at the Battle of Sharpsburg 10 months before.
What you have said is commonly repeated in history books and the like, but it is wrong nonetheless.
It is true that after Sharpsburg (Antietam to you Union folks) Union war aims changed, but that doesn't mean Confederate ones did. For the Confederate soldiers it was never a war solely to maintain the institution of slavery, and this didn't change post emancipation proclamation.
I don't truly believe that Europe would have actually come into the war, actually declared war on the U.S. at any point. They may have kept up their behind the scenes help. Sending supplies, helping to build raider in their ports. But this doesn't mean that the C.S. didn't still have hope that they would, and that hope was still there during Gettysburg.
This is very understandable as there was a British royal official present at the time. He was traveling with the C.S. army as an observer for the queen herself.
Also there is quite a difference between the pre and post civil war west. Firefly is decidedly post civil war west.
Lawrence
Tom: The men from 2nd Maine are being fed, sir.
Lawrence: Don’t call me sir.
Tom: Well, Lawrence, Great God A-Mighty–
Lawrence: You just be careful of that name business in front of the men. Listen, we don’t want anybody to think there’s favoritism.
Tom: General Meade has his son as his ajutant.
Lawrence: That’s different. Generals can do anything. Nothing quite so much like God on earth as a general on a battlefield.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently you disagree with me and the history books, I am not certain that makes me wrong however.
I never said that the Emancipation Proclamation changed Southern war aims, but it did change the nature of the conflict in terms of foriegn reaction. Britain and France had long turned their backs on slavery, and while sympathetic with the South as a trading partner as opposed to a competitor, this affinity was trumped by Lincoln's upping the ante.
Your claim that the south still hoped for recognition at Gettysburg may well be true, but it has nothing to do with reality. Lee's troops did not want to surrender and still had hope at Appomattox let alone Gettysburg. The fact that a sensible ruler wanted to observe the tactics of a new conflict does not mean that recognition was on the menu.
See how I'm not punching him, I think I've grown!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
yeah, so I'm bored, and this threat has kinda died.
So hear goes my attempt to bring it back.
I love firefly and all, but does anyone just feel like discussing the war... the civil war that is... or war between the states, war or northern aggression, 2nd revolutionary war... whatever you want to call it.
We could have an argument, god knows there is enough controversy surrounding the war for that.
Or just discuss Generals you love or hate, different stories from the period, ancestors you have, period music, dress, or even movies about the war.
Lawrence
****************************
Tom: The men from 2nd Maine are being fed, sir.
Lawrence: Don’t call me sir.
Tom: Well, Lawrence, Great God A-Mighty–
Lawrence: You just be careful of that name business in front of the men. Listen, we don’t want anybody to think there’s favoritism.
Tom: General Meade has his son as his ajutant.
Lawrence: That’s different. Generals can do anything. Nothing quite so much like God on earth as a general on a battlefield.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME