Is it wrong to be Pro- Alliance ?
POSTED BY: Booksword
UPDATED: Sunday, March 28, 2010 01:34
VIEWED: 35713
PAGE 8 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Goodwolf:Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.
Then it sounds like you're espousing a "Might makes Right" philosophy.
Both sides could be right in their perspectives, and the winner is the one side with the perseverance to outlast the other. I think if Britain were able to afford sending troops to America during the Revolutionary War, we would all be proud British Citizens right now.
http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
mycroft: There's a king of Londinium, apparently, though I suspect the role is largely ceremonial. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
Both sides could be right in their perspectives, and the winner is the one side with the perseverance to outlast the other.
May have been on the losin' side, still not convinced it was the wrong one. Sound familiar?
Quote:
I think if Britain were able to afford sending troops to America during the Revolutionary War, we would all be proud British Citizens right now.
Ah, if a frog had wings... and I call BS that both sides can be right in their perspectives. That's like saying that Israel and Palestine can both be right in their perspectives. Or the IRA and Britain. Or the North vs the South in the American Civil War. Or any two mortal foes you want to pick out. When looked on from the outside, one tends to find reason to support one over the other.
Regardless of how far we've come from what the Framers intended, they went to war for what they saw as valid reasons. Namely that we should not be taxed unjustly and without representation. In other words, that we weren't a slave colony whose only existence was to send raw goods and materials to an increasingly unsustainable Empire.
So with some serious attitude and help from France late in the fourth quarter, here we are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.
I think you're missing the point. The Colonists lost several times between 1604 and 1776. The desire for freedom did not end.
The War For Alliance Domination was from 2506-2511. It's only been 6 years since then. Do you really, really, really think all humans in the verse will surrender their desire for freedom forever, and not revive the fight? Really?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.
I think you're missing the point. The Colonists lost several times between 1604 and 1776. The desire for freedom did not end.
The War For Alliance Domination was from 2506-2511. It's only been 6 years since then. Do you really, really, really think all humans in the verse will surrender their desire for freedom forever, and not revive the fight? Really?
I believe that only Joss Whedon can answer this question jewelstaitefan, but I would like to point out that this show was designed more to follow the American Civil War than the Revolutionary War. The Civil War ended quite quickly and most of the Rebel Soldiers which survived decided to get on with their lives as best they could. Some of the majority stayed in the south to live, and some moved west to get away from the Federation of United States. Some of the minority did vow to fight on, but I don't think Joss wanted to broaden his perspective to include those people and wanted to focus solely on the losers who decided to move out of the Government's range.
http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.
I think you're missing the point. The Colonists lost several times between 1604 and 1776. The desire for freedom did not end.
The War For Alliance Domination was from 2506-2511. It's only been 6 years since then. Do you really, really, really think all humans in the verse will surrender their desire for freedom forever, and not revive the fight? Really?
I believe that only Joss Whedon can answer this question jewelstaitefan, but I would like to point out that this show was designed more to follow the American Civil War than the Revolutionary War. The Civil War ended quite quickly and most of the Rebel Soldiers which survived decided to get on with their lives as best they could. Some of the majority stayed in the south to live, and some moved west to get away from the Federation of United States. Some of the minority did vow to fight on, but I don't think Joss wanted to broaden his perspective to include those people and wanted to focus solely on the losers who decided to move out of the Government's range.
I've always thought the Civil War comparison was not quite accurate. Post war, yes, but the apparent causes of the war, no.
I'm aware that the idea for the War and Mal's character were influenced strongly by stories Joss read about the Civil War and soldiers who suffered from PTSD after it. But some of the metaphors don't add up for the Unification War to have been a perfect reflection of the Civil War (Like Londinium, Parliament, and the King).
In the Civil War, furthermore, I'd make an argument that the North was pretty dependent on the South to supply raw goods for the North's manufacturing powers, and that the North had some very real economic concerns and interests in the South not seceding. But I think the Rim and even Border planets are a lot more like the Revolutionary War example of a mother country and it's colonies when it's colonies start to become self-sufficient and start to demand fair and equal treatment. Only difference is, I think when each new colony established themselves, they were considered sovereign up until the Alliance decided to come in and bring them under the same roof. If the colonies were already Alliance, and decided to secede, why would the Alliance call their cause "Unification?"
BlueSunCompanyMan wrote an interesting blog about this, where he compared also the megacorporation Blue Sun to the East India Company.
So I think that the comparison of the Unification War to the Revolutionary War is more accurate, although I also think there are elements from the Civil War as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
You are right, but we (America) won the war, and that is the main difference.
I think you're missing the point. The Colonists lost several times between 1604 and 1776. The desire for freedom did not end.
The War For Alliance Domination was from 2506-2511. It's only been 6 years since then. Do you really, really, really think all humans in the verse will surrender their desire for freedom forever, and not revive the fight? Really?
I believe that only Joss Whedon can answer this question jewelstaitefan, but I would like to point out that this show was designed more to follow the American Civil War than the Revolutionary War. The Civil War ended quite quickly and most of the Rebel Soldiers which survived decided to get on with their lives as best they could. Some of the majority stayed in the south to live, and some moved west to get away from the Federation of United States. Some of the minority did vow to fight on, but I don't think Joss wanted to broaden his perspective to include those people and wanted to focus solely on the losers who decided to move out of the Government's range.
I've always thought the Civil War comparison was not quite accurate. Post war, yes, but the apparent causes of the war, no.
I'm aware that the idea for the War and Mal's character were influenced strongly by stories Joss read about the Civil War and soldiers who suffered from PTSD after it. But some of the metaphors don't add up for the Unification War to have been a perfect reflection of the Civil War (Like Londinium, Parliament, and the King).
In the Civil War, furthermore, I'd make an argument that the North was pretty dependent on the South to supply raw goods for the North's manufacturing powers, and that the North had some very real economic concerns and interests in the South not seceding. But I think the Rim and even Border planets are a lot more like the Revolutionary War example of a mother country and it's colonies when it's colonies start to become self-sufficient and start to demand fair and equal treatment. Only difference is, I think when each new colony established themselves, they were considered sovereign up until the Alliance decided to come in and bring them under the same roof. If the colonies were already Alliance, and decided to seceded, why would the Alliance call their cause "Unification?"
BlueSunCompanyMan wrote an interesting blog about this, where he compared also the megacorporation Blue Sun to the East India Company.
So I think that the comparison of the Unification War to the Revolutionary War is more accurate, although I also think there are elements from the Civil War as well.
But the questions still remain, could the settlers have settled on these Moons & planets if the Alliance hadn't spent its resources to terra form them, and does the Alliance have the right to expect some returns on those investments?
http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No one has a RIGHT to a return on an investment. An investment is a risk.
Do the colonies owe something to the mother country? Probably. Did the Core Worlds feel that way about the Independents? Oh heck yeah. Were Independents biting the hand that fed them? Sure. Do owners sometimes kick their dogs? Yep. Does the owner deserve to get bitten if they do it too often? Definitely.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
No one has a RIGHT to a return on an investment. An investment is a risk.
Do the colonies owe something to the mother country? Probably. Did the Core Worlds feel that way about the Independents? Oh heck yeah. Were Independents biting the hand that fed them? Sure. Do owners sometimes kick their dogs? Yep. Does the owner deserve to get bitten if they do it too often? Definitely.
I think to the Alliance a risk on their investment is if a world's terra forming doesn't take. If the Settlers get frisky they have a military to take care of that. I bet the Settlers had to sign some sort of contract stating their servitude or citizenship.
http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Folk is folk. Remember that line?
People are people, and to illustrate my point, I served in Iraq. I fought for my country. I love my country to the very ends of my fiber. Will i die for it? Yes. Will I die for Obama? No. Why? I don't support him. He is a person, a person I don't agree with.
There were plenty of people in the civil war (General Lee for example) who fought against the north simply because his state decided to leave, and he felt he owed more to that state than he did to the country.
And whether you believe it or not, every war may be different... but every war is the same in one way. There are always people who are broken after the war ends, on either side, and those broken people will always try to find their own path afterwards. Mal and Zoe are a good example of 'just trying to get on with our lives.'
I know way too many former servicemen and women who don't know what to do with themselves afterwards. I know a few who even went BACK to the military after like 3 or 4 years... only to realize they didn't even fit in there anymore.
When you experience a situation like that... you are forever changed. You see things in a different way. Politics, money, power... doesn't mean what it did before, and you may not want to ever deal with it again.
*****************
Enough of that.
Now, I'm also into the role-playing aspect of Serenity, and there was one of the creators of the Serenity Role playing book had a very.. very awesome theory.
The question presented to him was "I want a story that would be as earth shattering as the miranda story was, so that my role players will be all 'OMG!'"
His answer was just a simple report, made by an obscure gentleman which suggested that the alliance government was basically.. overdrawn. By a considerable amount. Now although that seems retarded, if you think about it, if the corporations and the like came to realize this.. thousands upon thousands of businesses would go bankrupt. The alliance would collapse in a big heap of smouldering debt.
And if you think, well this is just one guy's story.. think of it this way.
As canon, Joss already has agreed on two other aspects. One, the alliance needed the outer planets to stay with them, because most of the core worlds, are already low on resources. And need the outer planets, to fuel them. Is this wrong? No. But, they are demanding. They don't want to to compromise, or suggest trade routes - they just want those precious resources.
The second bit, is this. In a year or so, a small acting company will be releasing a film, that as far as I know, Joss whedon not only said yes to, but.. is also considering canon. It's about after the miranda report was released to the verse... and the potential SECOND civil war that happens because of it.
Find the movie, Browncoats: Redemption here - http://browncoatsmovie.com/
So in the end, we can count on a few things.
1) the alliance is hurting for resources.
2) One government trying to govern hundreds of planets with weeks and sometimes months between systems.
3) The tv show, movie, was never about politics. it was about people. People in extraordinary circumstances.
So no. Its not wrong to be a purple belly, as the ideals are good. Ideals can stand for centuries but eventually they get tainted by people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME