What were the Independents Really Fighting For?
POSTED BY: Ty
UPDATED: Saturday, August 9, 2003 14:22
VIEWED: 11782
PAGE 2 of 6
Great thread!
Now let me try my hand. In the early years of the American Civil War, people in the North were generally against slavery. That didn't mean, though, that they wanted to die to end it. When war broke out, many people rioted, and even the legislators of New York City held a meeting on whether they should secede from the Union with the South. (That decision was quickly scrapped on April 13, 1861 when news that Fort Sumter was fired on spread.)
The North was torn. Should we fight for abolition, Should we fight to keep the Union together, Should we fight for "Northern rights," Should we fight to establish a centralized Republic, Should we fight to end the aristocracy that is growing in the South in the form of Cavaliers? Should we fight to avenge Fort Sumter? Even the least ambivalence would cause someone to decide that none of these things were worth dying for. Really, if Alabama dropped off the map, would anyone know or care? Would anyone be willing to die to be sure that it didn't? Has anyone actually met a cavalier, and how does that effect my salary at the factory?
The South, by contrast, knew why they were fighting. They were being invaded.
In Firefly, the same thing pretty much applies. The rim is being invaded, they want to rule us. If there is another reason for a cosmic Civil War, it is not metioned in the series, but that, it seems, is as good a reason as any.
Viva Firefly!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:
Really, if Alabama dropped off the map, would anyone know or care? Would anyone be willing to die to be sure that it didn't?
With the exception of Sarahetc (for whom I would at least smack people over the head with a guitar), I wouldn't mind if Alabama disappeared--except that it would bring Georgia that much closer...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:
The North was torn. Should we fight for abolition, Should we fight to keep the Union together, Should we fight for "Northern rights," Should we fight to establish a centralized Republic, Should we fight to end the aristocracy that is growing in the South in the form of Cavaliers? Should we fight to avenge Fort Sumter? Even the least ambivalence would cause someone to decide that none of these things were worth dying for. Really, if Alabama dropped off the map, would anyone know or care? Would anyone be willing to die to be sure that it didn't? Has anyone actually met a cavalier, and how does that effect my salary at the factory?
The South, by contrast, knew why they were fighting. They were being invaded.
Right. Yes. Dig yourself. But seriously, seriously, seriously abolition was not the source of the war. As my high school history teacher used to say, slavery was the salt in the festering wound of domestic policy.
As for southern aristocracy, the notion of it, while legitimate, is staggering in contrast with the yankee aristocracy. No matter how much progress the Fugitive movement of literature made, people are still bogged down with this moonlight and magnolias idea.
Not that you're bogged down, Johnny. You make a lot of great points.
We've been half chatting about this on IRC all evening (yet another reason for all y'all to join us-- threads live!) and Archer brought up a good point. A Civil War is a war between two factions for control of one government. The American Civil War was not that. When the south seceeded, it did so to declare independence and form its own government, by and for its own people. The union army invaded to disallow that to maintain the steady flow of agricultural products. In fact, when the union won its narrow victory, Reconstruction ensured that those products would flow at an ever faster pace and better rate.
Firefly? When the Alliance crushed the resistance of the Rim, they can now take whatever the Rim is producing (ore, timber, cattle, whatever) at a faster and better rate. The Alliance are carpetbaggers with dweeby uniforms.
Sarah
p.s. Again, somebody pat me on the back for not using the term The War of Northern Aggression.
I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Y'all wonder why the Independence was fighting the Alliance? It's simple: the Alliance, like all governments that gain power from violence and threats of violence, could care less for 99% of it's populace. Unless you live on a Core World and are rich/powerful the Alliace will ignore/persecute you.
Examples:
1. Bushwacked - The Feds travelling on the maglev train were ordered to continue to their base despite the fact that without their help, it was likely that the stolen meds would not be recovered.
2. Safe - The Alliance cruiser Magellen, despite having excellent medical facilities, was going to refuse treatment to a mortally wounded man until they read his ident card and discovered that he was one of those special 1%.
I'm sure there are more, I just can't think of 'em.
Oh, my GOD! WHO'S FLYING THIS THING!!! Oh, right that would be me...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Blackstar, I don't think the Alliance is as bad as some make it out to be. Yes, there are some bad apples, mostly the ones that deal in the kinds of places Serenity’s crew does, but there are also many out there that are doing good, or at least are trying to do good-- The Alliance guys that wanted to prosecute Mal and all the others because he thought they murdered all of those families in Bushwhacked, and most of the men and women in The Train Job loved the Alliance for some reason.
I think everyone, both sides, still have rough feelings from the war and don’t trust anyone that wasn't fighting for them in the first place, oh, or it’s the stories all the core born folks and little kids have been told about the war and how horrible, sneaky, and controlling the people from the “other side” are.
Hope something in that mess made sense.
-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Kaythryn, I agree that in general, most of the low- and mid-level Alliance citizens and servents(soldiers, spacers and the like)are probably good people who belive in the Alliance. And, in some cases, the Alliance may be beneficial to some people, but I think the leaders, or elements within the leadership, are certainly evil. For those 'bad apples' to thrive they must be ignored and possibly even encouaged. And don't forget, the Alliance created an Academy specifically for the purpose of luring the best and brightest children in the Core with the intent of doing inhumane experiments on them. I don't mean to suggest that the Alliance is evil incarnate, but I do think that many of the Independants realized the problems within the Alliance and didn't wish to join. But, since the higher-ups wanted more power...
Oh, my God! WHO'S FLYING THIS THING!!! Oh, right, that would be me...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
When the south seceeded, it did so to declare independence and form its own government, by and for its own people. The union army invaded to disallow that to maintain the steady flow of agricultural products.
I have to say that I know a whole lot more about Civil War battles than I do about it's causes.
Any way here's my pereception of the whole mess.
The political leaders and rich landowners of the South fought to preserve a way of life dependent on the plantation system. States Rights was a keystone to their argument, it was essential to maintain their system (by is I mean that if the Federal government could outlaw slavery make tariffs on finished European goods mandatory it might threaten their way of life). Most Confederate soldiers were not of this class, their reasons for going to war were for regional pride and what they perceived as self-defense. As Shelby Foote put it, a Yankee asked a Reb "Why are you fighting?" the Reb replied, "Why are you down here?"
The North needed a market but couldn't produce finished goods as cheapily as Europe. The political leaders in the North wanted to tax incoming goods from Europe. Once the South the seceded there was an outcry to preserve the Union not to mention the continuting pressure from the Abolotionist Movement to end slavery, these were the motivations for most of the common Union soldiers.
I find it interesting that so much is made about the Civil War not being about slavery. If you read some of the documents of the time ( http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html) it seems to be very much on their minds.
I think the Rebel Soldier is glorified because of the bravery and bravado he fought with (both these characteristics embodied in the Rebel Yell), but as far as his cause, I just don't believe it was the right one.
The Union Soldier gets the short straw here. He fought as hard as his counterpart, but for most of the war he had inferior leadership. Think of the courage it would take to charge the wall at Fredericksburg. To be outmanouvered and beaten time and time again and still be able to hold Little Round Top and the Angle at Gettysburg.
The characters in this TV show, that I love so much, represent all the good aspects of these men on bothsides. I'm sure that Joss is not using the Browncoats to posthumously show the superiority of the Southern cause. And I don't care what that guy wrote in the article Swatting the Firefly, Firefly wasn't canceled because Malcolm Reynolds is a Southerner.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's not get too carried away. The Confederate states hesitated not at all in drafting the unwilling into military service, nationalizing goods and services for the war effort, and dealing with foreign powers as a nation, despite their 'state's rights' rhetoric.
Was 'abolition' simply political hogwash to hoodwink the ignorant masses? Don't count on it, particularly if YOU're the one being branded.
As for Firefly, doesn't Mal more than once in the few episodes we've seen mention or imply that there is trade in humans?
The Core worlds were pouring huge amounts of cash and resources into terraforming to supply the growing human race with new worlds to develop. Who in their right mind, or even close, would populate a new world with criminals, or even reluctant colonists? Sure, the colonists often had no idea of the privations they would endure, but hey, shouldn't they have checked a little before getting on that transport? And then they have the nerve to declare themselves independent. Imagine that.
As for the technology, listen up, pilgrim. You can a)ship a buncha machines to your frontier, then ship repair parts along with mechanics; this is expensive, or b)ship the components to build a factory to make the machines and parts; this is expensive, or c)ship 2 horses and 2 donkeys, and breed them into herds, cross them for mules; this is cheap. You can ride the horses, use them to pull wagons, or even eat them. The donkeys are useful for light cartage, and in breeding mules. Mules can do everything a horse can, and are often better; the problem is they don't breed.
People will build with materials found on the frontier, cause it's cheaper. People will grow their own food on the frontier, cause it's cheaper. Horses, gardens, wooden towns; these are all inevitable on any frontier that is really a frontier and not some themepark. Gunpowder is reliable and cheap; batteries are neither, so guns are likely to be with us as long as there is a frontier.
What were the Independents fighting for? Let's not forget the Alliance was fighting, too. It was likely more complex than just 'freedom' for the Indies or 'money' for the Alliance.
Take my love
Take my land
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kaythryn, your post hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. I don't think its at all clear that the Alliance itself is evil, at least not in the black and white way everyone seems to need in televisionland. To me, its just back to the same old point - this show is about people, not politics and history. Its about what its like to be on the losing side after major war.
If the Alliance was clearly an evil empire ala Star Wars, the meaning of the story would shift and we be tempted to root for some kind of New Rebellion. I sincerely hope that's not the case and I think we've been given plenty of clues that it's not.
Certainly the Alliance has its evil elements (blue hands, etc) and given that survival for Serenity often means bending the law it[The Alliance] will fill the role of the bad guy in most cases, but I think that's more a matter of circumstance. The Alliance seems to me no more evil than any large powerful government.
SergeantX
"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not all of us came here of our own free will. The southern colonies started off as penal colonies for pickpockets, hookers, and other such folks England did not want. (Which makes their buying slaves all the more ironic)
Has anyone else noted that the Alliance has Lords and such? An aristocracy is a bit of an old idea, and would have thought it would die off.
As to your "terrorize the world in the name of Freedom", well if it keeps them from flying planes into our building, so what?
"my kind of stupid"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME