From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #324 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/324 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blakes7-d Digest Volume 99 : Issue 324 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] the Federation Re: [B7L] the Federation Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Re: [B7L] Murderous Victorians Re: [B7L] Reserved materials Re: [B7L] the Federation Re: [B7L] Murderous Victorians Re: [B7L] the Federation Re: [B7L] Murderous Victorians [B7L] Re: Cally Re: [B7L] Star One and after... [B7L] Alan Stevens' Tapes [B7L] Sorry, Steve [B7L] Cally, Avon and revenge (I make up my own subject headings) [B7L] The societal thread... [B7L] Re: Cally ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:46:28 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: <19991118.230411.10014.0.Rilliara@juno.com> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:40:04 -0000 "Neil Faulkner" writes: >Compare the European imperial mode with that of the Spanish in South >and >Central America two hundred years earlier. Whole civilisations were >systematically dismantled in the name of self-righteous Christian >superiority. Cities and temples were levelled, the people effectively >enslaved, entire tribes exterminated. The closest European parallel >would >appear to be in the late 1930s/early 40s, when another >ideologically-driven >regime deployed an excess of might to prevent its right being called >into >question. Though a little skirmish in the Balkans earlier this year >runs a >close second. > >Neil Far be it from me to give the conquistadores a whitewash, but you wouldn't have found any culture in Europe--and probably not the Middle East, and large sections of the Far East--who wouldn't have freaked out at meeting many of the Indian civilizations in this area. The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas all practiced human sacrifice. The Aztecs in particular had practices that were beyond disgusting. Add to that the fact some of their rituals _were_ likely to hit Christian hot spots (the Spaniards witnessed one human sacrifice ending with the victims blood being mixed with some kind of flour to make small bits of bread which were then eaten, the participants declaring it to be the flesh of diety. There wasn't _anyone_ in Europe who wouldn't have seen 'Black Mass' written all over this). Yes, conquest and enslavement under brutal conditions leading to equally hideous fatality rates seems like a very inappropriate reaction to witnessing man's inhumanity to man. But it's difficult to think of a civilization that qualifies as civilized that wouldn't have had a strong urge to throw a wrench in Aztec worship practices. Ellynne ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:45:55 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: <001601bf325c$44865ea0$c619ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew wrote: >But when it is as bad as people seem to say on this list, even the army >rebels. I wouldn't bet on that. After all, it took a major civilian uprising in Romania to prompt the army to turn against Ceaucesku. OTOH, it was the Chinese army that used flamethrowers against unarmed civilians in Beijing. Basically, you can't make blanket assertions about what will or will not happen under an oppressive regime. Ask the Tupamaros. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 06:59:48 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Message-ID: <001801bf325c$4620d4c0$c619ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ellynne wrote: >Fatalism was a coping skill, an acceptance of how much was literally >beyond their control. But it worked against them when circumstances >changed and things could be in their control. Apparently it was (and maybe still is) commonplace among many African tribes to apply such fatalism to death by crocodile. Someone snatched by a croc could expect no help from his or her companions, who would just paddle on without looking back. >Look at Tarzan. How about picking the "right" side in >any local wars according to either general European values or British >national interests? And never violating certain ideas of fairness in a >fight? Thinking back a long way, in the Tarzan film where Johnny Weismuller took on half the Third Reich and won single-handed, I recall he had to be goaded into taking sides (I forgot what the Nasties went and did - raped Jane, probably). What irks me about the ''It's only natural'' proponents is that all too frequently they are merely using the concept of 'natural' to eschew moral responsibility. Since ''it's only natural'' to want to get laid, the where, when, how and who with needn't be considered. Not with some people, anyway. And since ''it's only natural'' to devour animal flesh, the ethical dimensions of factory farming can be safely ignored. Anyone who defends their behaviour on the basis that it's only natural needs to be pounced on immediately and their position subjected to the most intense scrutiny possible. Chances are you'll find they're only trying to defend what they know to be indefensible. Unfortunately, chances are you'll also lose a lot of friends, since almost everyone resorts to this tactic at some time or other. It's just so much easier to toss out a glib appeal to the supposedly natural than to marshal a coherent argument. I've done it myself, I admit. But then I would, wouldn't I? After all, it's only natural. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 06:44:28 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Murderous Victorians Message-ID: <001701bf325c$45609200$c619ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Helen wrote: >Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Australian aborigines nearly >wiped out? I thought I read somewhere that 90% of their population was >destroyed. 80 per cent, in the century and a half up to about 1920. Most of the decline is attributable to diseases introduced by European settlers, though there was some deliberate population reduction. I think it was the Tasmanians who were literally hunted to extinction. There was even a bounty system in operation. However (trying to get back to the Federation thread) I'm not sure that the extermination of the Tasmanian aborigines correlates all that closely with the atrocities laid at the Federation's feet. The end result is the same, of course, namely lots of needlessly dead people, but the modus operandi is different. Although sponsored by the colonial power, the Tasmanian genocide was, IIRC (an I'm having to think back here, not having any references to hand), conducted by civilian settlers on a largely ad hoc basis and required their unquestioned belief that what they were doing was justified. The Federation's activities on, for example, Saurian Major are more akin to the Nazi Holocaust (yup, that old chestnut) in that it involved a major investment by the state -regardless- of popular consensus. Goebbels' propaganda ministry had to whip up popular anti-Jewish sentiment through films like Jud Suess and The Eternal Jew (the public preferred the former, even though Hitler favoured the latter's soapbox rhetoric). The Final Solution was supposedly conducted in secret, and relied on public acquiescence through pretended ignorance. The Tasman genocide was no secret at all, and could depend on tacit public support. Furthermore, the extermination of the Jews was a fundamental axiom of the Aryan supremacism on which Nazi ideology was founded, whereas extermination of aboriginal peoples was not axiomatic to the supremacism embedded in Euro-colonialism. Tasmania was an unpremeditated exception, rather than the rule. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:49:35 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Reserved materials Message-ID: <109e01bf3262$e4ff65b0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tiger wrote: > In a message dated 11/17/1999 7:22:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, > susan.moore@uni.edu writes: > > > Ob B7 ref.: Which of our heroes would actually read the materials the > > professors put on reserve? > > I think Dayna would, assuming the subject interested her. Soolin would > probably only do so if it were critical to passing the class. Tarrant would > read the materials because he would want to do well in the class. Vila would > blow it off and try to cheat off Tarrant's papers. Oh, absolutely! Vila would bullshit wildly based on someone else's lecture notes, and an Open University programme he saw at 2am one morning some time in 1986. He would end up with either the highest or lowest grade the class had ever had. Una ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:57:38 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: <10ce01bf3265$f6d28260$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ellynne wrote: > The Aztecs in > particular had practices that were beyond disgusting. Add to that the > fact some of their rituals _were_ likely to hit Christian hot spots (the > Spaniards witnessed one human sacrifice ending with the victims blood > being mixed with some kind of flour to make small bits of bread which > were then eaten, the participants declaring it to be the flesh of diety. > There wasn't _anyone_ in Europe who wouldn't have seen 'Black Mass' > written all over this). Ooh, that's very interesting. Yes, I can see how that might touch a few nerves. > Yes, conquest and enslavement under brutal conditions leading to equally > hideous fatality rates seems like a very inappropriate reaction to > witnessing man's inhumanity to man. But it's difficult to think of a > civilization that qualifies as civilized that wouldn't have had a strong > urge to throw a wrench in Aztec worship practices. The Spanish are also simultaneously doing a pretty good job of eradicating the Jews and Moors in their own country. So in Central America, a brutal nation met a brutal nation and reacted - brutally. Restores my faith in human nature. Una ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:13:20 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Murderous Victorians Message-ID: <10cf01bf3265$f715ccf0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil wrote: > the Nazi Holocaust (yup, that old chestnut) *That's* an interesting historical analysis... > in that it involved a major > investment by the state -regardless- of popular consensus. Goebbels' > propaganda ministry had to whip up popular anti-Jewish sentiment through > films like Jud Suess and The Eternal Jew (the public preferred the former, > even though Hitler favoured the latter's soapbox rhetoric). The Final > Solution was supposedly conducted in secret, and relied on public > acquiescence through pretended ignorance. The Tasman genocide was no secret > at all, and could depend on tacit public support. Well, the extent to which local populations knew what was going on is still a much argued one. I think you change your mind half way through that paragraph, Neil, ultimately deciding that both cases were reliant on tacit public support. However, Goebbels didn't turn a largely apathetic community anti-Semitic. He persuaded a largely anti-Semitic community to turn a blind eye to what was going on. That strikes me as popular consensus, of a most pernicious kind. > Furthermore, the extermination of the Jews was a fundamental axiom of the > Aryan supremacism on which Nazi ideology was founded, whereas extermination > of aboriginal peoples was not axiomatic to the supremacism embedded in > Euro-colonialism. Tasmania was an unpremeditated exception, rather than the > rule. I think that's an excellent summary of the ideological difference. I think it also explains why the Holocaust is used so often as an example: we use it as shorthand for a particular type of crime which was unheard of until this century. No wonder we can't avoid using it as an example. I hope we continue to do so for a long time. Umm, Blake's 7. Gosh, that Federation was bad, wasn't it? You see, I think the problem here is that we're comparing regimes which brutally suppressed *parts* of the population with the Federation, which brutally repressed *all* of its population. The Federation don't seem to have a scapegoat community, unless they're broad-brushing all 'terrorists' as that community, a la 'Brazil'. Una ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1999 09:40:36 +0100 From: Calle Dybedahl To: b7spin@metva.com.au CC: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >>>>> "Ellynne" == Ellynne G writes: > The Aztecs in particular had practices that were beyond disgusting. What's very rarely mentioned in this context is that for the really gross sacrifices, the victims were _volunteers_. They certainly killed lots of unwilling people (prisoners of war, mostly), but those just got their heads chopped off. Which isn't all that different from what was going on back in Europe. Better, actually, if you enter the Spanish Inquisition into the equation. > But it's difficult to think of a civilization that qualifies as > civilized that wouldn't have had a strong urge to throw a wrench in > Aztec worship practices. Why? The Aztecs as a whole were bloodthirsty sickos, yes, but all the really gross stuff the priests did to themselves, by their own free will. (Hm, this should probably be on the Spin List rather than here.) -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se Please pay no attention to the panda in the fridge. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 01:26:40 PST From: "Rob Clother" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Murderous Victorians Message-ID: <19991119092641.17375.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >Umm, Blake's 7. Gosh, that Federation was bad, wasn't it? You see, I think >the problem here is that we're comparing regimes which brutally suppressed >*parts* of the population with the Federation, which brutally repressed >*all* of its population. Which is why Judith's comparison of the Federation with Stalin's regime was particularly accurate. -- Rob ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:55:25 GMT From: benmtt@cwcom.net To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Cally Message-id: <38359d1d.4b34.0@cwcom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally wrote: >Ummm....that isn't my impression of that glower she gives Blake in >Breakdown (which is with Moloch the worst examples of her lazy >conscience). Here she is extremely holier-*and*-more-civilized- >than-thou ("among my people such things are considered >barbarous"), without making the slightest effort to come up with a >better solution to the minor matter of Gan possibly killing them. Perhaps you'd prefer Cally to simply blandly agree with everything Blake says. Again, Cally has a right to her opinion and a right to express it. And her later releasing Gan from his restraints was not an act of self-righteousness; it was an act of compassion that was at worst misguided and impractical. Then again, Cally's errors of judgement don't really add up to much when compared with someone like Tarrant or Dayna. >This scene in Children is clearly the first she's heard of this plan - >she didn't even know they were planning to go to Earth, let alone >that it was Avon's idea. And she doesn't ask any questions, doesn't >try to understand. It's immediate total unthinking condemnation >(like with Blake in Breakdown). After Avon's display of intolerance and ignorance towards Auron culture in "Children", maybe Cally just felt like showing him the same consideration. >In Trial she certainly questions their invulnerability, but not their >motives, and, as I said, she then doesn't appear to have a qualm in >her mind till that moment on the flight deck. Killer right through to >The Keeper...(with the exception of that one look both she and >Jenna give Blake in Gambit). Sorry, but there's no *proof* that Cally didn't have any doubts during this period. She could have simply kept them to herself, and even in "Star One" I don't think she was questioning her commitment to her goals, more the precise nature of that commitment. She simply wasn't, as you've already said, required to show any qualms until it was narratively expedient for her to do so (just like the fact that Central Control wasn't even mentioned until the second series or that Avon didn't explicitly express a desire to avenge Anna until "Children" when he'd had command of the Liberator since the end of "Powerplay"). Even then, I don't see that admitting to her own doubts and uncertainties constitutes any kind of real U-turn on Cally's part. I'm sorry, Sally, but I simply don't consider that to be a valid argument. >quote the lady herself, "Nobody's perfect."> > >Yes, but do remember while I did lambast her for being self- >righteous and (along with just about everyone else) intolerant, I >only said she she slides perilously *close* to hypocrisy. For the record, Sally, I've really enjoyed your posts on Cally, amongst other topics and I think you've highlighted aspects of her character which are very interesting. But it does rather come across as though you are especially critical of Cally's flaws, without presenting *any* real reason why that should be so. None of the characters are angels, but all have their own intriguing, redeemable qualities. Blake for instance had more than his fair share of abrasive/objectionable personality traits, but was essentially *quite right* to fight the Federation. There were times when you found him perfectly likeable and reasonable, other times when you could just hate him (his co-ercion of Sarkoff in "Bounty" didn't win him any prizes, IMO)but in the long run I think this made him a much more interesting and believable character than the "Robin Hood in space" that Terry Nation originally envisaged (so, I understand). Full marks to Gareth Thomas and Chris Boucher for "developing" things here. And whilst I did enjoy your "Star One" posts a while back and thought you offered an excellent defence of Blake's actions, it did *seem* that Roj's "raw courage" was being propped up at Cally's expense. Perhaps I just don't like the idea of one character *apparently* being dumped on to put another on a pedestal. Best wishes, Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 23:39:07 +0200 (EET) From: Kai V Karmanheimo To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Star One and after... Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sally wrote : I didn't take it as a dig, and my reply wasn't meant to sound indignant. Not knowing what had been said on the subject of Star One, I was mainly testing whether my interpretation had come up before and whether this was an issue which had been argued so much that every one was just sick 'n' tired of it, or that some reading had become "given information". You don't want to be constantly telling people that : a) it has been invented already and is called "the wheel", b) it would work better if it was slightly less rectangular. The Star One question is one which is open to interpretation, i.e. not having enough information you can have various readings and choosing one is mainly a question of belief. Well, given that in this case I could choose between a smooth and bloodless transfer of computer control from Star One to planetary computers, or cataclysmic disasters shaking the foundations of civilised worlds, I - not having a single sensationalist or bloodthirsty bone in my body - *naturally* chose to believe in the latter option. I still think that this is what Cally meant when she said people would die without Star One and asking whether it was justified. But I shouldn't have presented it as it were given information (i.e. turning belief into dogma). Either way, "Star One" remains one of the greatest episodes in the series (*that* interpretation I'm quite prepared to pass as given information). < then try to convince the audience that Avon would let *again* let someone like that run his life, let alone *his* ship.> Yes, after two years of striving for the Caliph's throne, he wouldn't be ready to go back to being the Grand Vizier. We the audience can at least be glad that the writers didn't go for that solution. Kai ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:49:42 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Cc: "Freedom City" Subject: [B7L] Alan Stevens' Tapes Message-ID: <158a01bf32d9$8ae86000$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Horizon is no longer stocking these tapes: 'Travis: The Final Act'; 'The Mark Of Kane' and 'The Logic of Empire'. If you have ordered one, and your order has not been fulfilled, or if you would like to order one, then please direct queries to either Judith Proctor via website, or Alan Stevens at: 62 St White's Road Cinderford Glos. GL14 3DQ (United Kingdom orders only.) Price List: - Travis: The Final Act: £5.50 (UK); £5.70 (Europe); £6.00 or US$10 cash for America and Australia. - The Mark of Kane: £5.50 (UK); £5.70 (Europe); £6.00 or US$10 cash for America and Australia. - The Logic of Empire: £6.50 (UK); £6.70 (Europe); £7.00 or US$12 cash for America and Australia. Australian tapes are also available from Pat Fenech. American tapes are also available from Linda Knights. Una ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:41:41 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Sorry, Steve Message-ID: <38361875.D8@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm the main culprit, I know. On the other hand... read all my posts. I write well. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:20:00 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Cally, Avon and revenge (I make up my own subject headings) Message-ID: <38362171.4BAE@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral said: > > . It's interesting that you say Cally wants to atone for her > failure, but Avon just wants revenge? I'd say their motives > are very similar. > > It's always been my thought that Avon was motivated by guilt, > and the subconscious thought process went something like: > Couldn't save Anna, Can't find Blake, Didn't even *avenge* > Anna.... In other words, it was the only constructive thing he > could do for the people he loved and lost. Survivor guilt, and > personal loyalty. > > Cally could have easily been motivated by survivor guilt as well > as her cultural background. > > They were both of them quite willing to suffer and die to achieve > their ends; the only differences are that Cally was deliberately > staging a *suicide*, and that her victims would be faceless > Federation employees (who may or may not have ever actually > harmed her comrades), whereas Avon knew who he wanted to > kill (who was actually a killer himself). > But in Cally's case, it was war. On the other hand, in Avon's case, it was for love, and all's fair in love and war. I like the points you make in Avon's defence. I definitely feel that it was guilt, and the feeling that the only thing left he *could* do was avenge her. He says something, doesn't he, about the fact that she must not have talked about what he was doing. (Perhaps that indicates there was more to what he was doing than just the money scam). --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 21:25:18 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] The societal thread... Message-ID: <383622AF.346B@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Anybody think Avon was adopted after being stolen from his real family > and fraternal twin, Blake? Or maybe he's Inga's brother? *What* do they have genetically in common except for being male? I've never seen brothers less alike. Avon was obviously adopted out of the Restal family. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 22:33:30 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Cally Message-ID: <19991120063334.54610.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mistral wrote: I rather like this idea. And after I said: <(and I can forgive her quite a lot for Voice From The Past. I really really would have liked to see more of the Cally in Voice From The Past.) Mistral also queried: For me, Cally's best episodes are Time Squad, Mission to Destiny, Shadow and Voice. (Sargophagus is good, but for completely different reasons, and the two centred on her - Dawn of the Gods and Children of Auron - are pretty awful.) I think this episode has the best of Cally's strengths. Her loyalty, as she and Avon try to save Blake from himself even when he's (under mental coercion) turning on them. Her intelligence and capacity for cool, logical thought (which we do not see nearly enough of elsewhere) - it's Cally who picks up the central point of the mind control, albeit Orac has to ram it home. There's her sensitivity (the 'no more nightmares' bit, with Cally and Avon hovering over Blake for a moment, is lovely), along with the strength to back up her words with actions (with Avon, pulling a gun on everyone on the flight deck - but Jenna should've been there too, methinks - and earlier, interestingly enough, she *doesn't* query the need for restraints like she did with the far more dangerous Gan). There's even a rare touch of humour - "I'm not that alien". And her mental powers get unobtrusive but practical use (noticing the oscillating tone) without the 'I feeeel it' nonsense of Horizon. We do get to see this tougher, practical Cally in Shadow (but only for a short while) and in the scene with Jenna and Molok in Hostage, but it gets the best showing here IMHO. Had she been this good all the time... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #324 **************************************