Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.
Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.
**Sesason 3 Episode 12 “Sic Transit Vir”** See this for a plot summary.
Although the details were a bit unclear, part of this episode is about a Centauri, Vir, operating something like an underground railroad for Narns. Apparently he gets them off the Centauri-occupied Narn Homeworld and sent to better places. Speaking of which, we get more details of what the occupation is like. It’s even more genocidal than we knew earlier. Entire villages are wiped out. In fact, what Vir did might be more comparable to what was done by some people who helped Jewish people survive the Holocaust. The widespread and extreme racism of the Centauris towards the Narn is also illustrated some more.
**Season 3 Episode 19 “Grey 17 is Missing”** See this for a plot summary.
There is one political thing. After Delenn, the minbari Ambassador to B5, agrees to lead the anti-Shadow force the Rangers, her rival in the minbari gov’t tells her he won’t accept that. He’s military and thinks his caste should lead the Rangers. He says that is the tradition on Minbar, but Delenn (a member of the religious caste) points out that he violated that tradition when he took her seat after she was expelled from the leadership (a leadership that is supposed to have three members from each of the three castes (religious, warrior, and worker)). I almost didn’t review this episode but in season 4 there are a few episodes about minbari politics. Also, the military leader says something interesting about Delenn. He says: “a religious zealot propelled by prophecy into a position of military and political power? Always a bad idea”
In general of course I agree with that. But in this fictional case, if she’s representative of the religious caste, it must be a pretty good religion- better than Christianity in general, for example. I am trying to remember some specifics but in general minbari society seems a lot better than many very religious societies in real life. Delenn has expressed no bigotry, has undergone a transformation to strengthen relations between the minbari and humans, ends up marrying a human, attended a Christian religious service, is a strong advocate for peace, etc. She IS religious enough that she might be close to a zealot, but I think she doesn’t go that far with her religious beliefs.
On a related note, I am a little disappointed that the religious and warrior castes each have 1/3 of the leadership. That’s a lot. The military shouldn’t have that much power especially since it’s formal and they can recruit allies from the other two castes to win votes on policy, etc. And even though I am sort of religious, I don’t like the idea of the officially religious sector of society having that much power either. On the other hand, the idea of the workers having 1/3 of state power is better than most societies in reality.
**Season 3, episode 21 “Shadow Dancing”** For a plot summary see this.
There is one thing that I think is worth mentioning even though it’s sort of been mentioned before. While in a very poor part of B5 a tourist says to her husband: “President Clark says that people like this are the result of social problems, not economic problems.” First it confirms that Clark is a class warrior. Also, I imagine that he meant “bad morality” when he said “social problems.”
**Season 3 Episode 22 “Z’ha’dum”** For a plot summary, see this.
As I explained above, I was pretty sure there was nothing about the conflict with the Shadows that was political enough for me to mention. This episode is probably the only exception. (Part of why I say the Shadows are non-political is that they appear to be: without the societal divisions we see in reality; without ANY tradition of (or struggle for) democracy; without any recognizable capitalist or socialist tendencies; without any bigotry similar to what we have in reality; without any dissidents; and perhaps without imperialism as we know it in reality)
Sheridan travels to the Shadow Homeworld and listens to their human allies explain the philosophy of the Shadows. Here are some of their statements:
“[they] believe that strength only comes from conflict.”
“you bring two sides together, they fight. A lot of them die. But those who survive are stronger, smarter, and better.”
In response to Sheridan mentioning the destruction of entire races, one says “a few get lost along the way.”
They say similar things about the history of humanity, and attribute early space exploration and the development of atomic fission to war. They also say that Sheridan’s coalition building with the other races is getting in the way of their plans.
It’s incredibly darwinian, genocidal and fascist. Although war can encourage experimentation and invention, A) at least one thing developed in that context (splitting the atom) shouldn’t have been pursued and B) I’m certain that humanity could have invented the rocket without the help of Nazi Germany and could have pursued space exploration without the the Cold War. Although I wouldn’t expect this transformation to happen overnight or anytime soon, if we took all the money spent on “Defense” and invested it in research for things like medicine, we could save a lot of lives and improve a lot of lives.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Babylon 5 Reviews G
Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.
Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.
**Season 3 Episode 3 “A Day in the Strife”** See this for a plot summary.
This episode contains a fair amount of stuff about the Centauri occupation of Narn. We learn that there is a resistance and that for every Centauri killed 500 Narn are killed. The former dissolved the old Narn government and created a provisional government. The representative of it sent to B5 opposes the resistance, saying it is the wrong time. I am inclined to think, when would be the right time? This Narn collaborator vaguely talks about waiting until they’re a bit stronger and the Centauri have been lulled into a sense of false security. Between the fact that he is officially a collaborator and at one point he blames the resistance, not the Centauri, for the nightmare the Narn are experiencing, I’m inclined to dismiss his opposition to the resistance.
Looking at N. Ireland, I believe that certainly there were some times when it was a bad idea to use violence. First I have supported the cease-fire since day one. And I would agree that in the late '60s it would have been inappropriate for the IRA to have been conducting operations in N. Ireland. But after Aug. 1969 (when there were massive anti-catholic pogroms) and especially about 9 months later when, independent of the IRA, the relationship between the British Army and the nationalist community went bad, it was legitimate for the IRA to attack the security forces. After that, they usually had the backing of about 40% of the population and in my opinion the right analysis of the situation- it was very important to unite Ireland, considering what had been done to the nationalist population around 1970. As I explain here only about .3% of the IRA’s operations were aimed at killing civilians.
There is a scene in the episode which I think is worth quoting in full. The Narn representative of the new government meets wit the Centauri ambassador (Mollari) and his aide, Vir.
Mollari: You know, I was thinking of visiting your world sometime soon. I couldn’t really get a good look at it the last time I was in the area. Do you think it would be safe for someone such as myself to visit your world now?
Na’far: Yes, quite safe.
Mollari: The streets are kept clear of troublemakers, rock throwers, protestors?
Nar’far: The surviving streets are quite empty, ambassador.
Molarri: The work farms, the relocation camps, the construction gangs are all operating at capacity?
Na’far: (nodds)
Mollari: And the executions, Na’far? The executions continue?
Na’far: The executions continue.
Mollari: Progress! It’s a beautiful thing to behold, no, Vir? [to Na’far] you may contact G’Kar, now. go, go (Na’far leaves)
Vir: Was that necessary?
Mollari: They got out of their place once. We must make sure it does not happen again.
Vir: Londo, we’ve beaten them. Their cities are in ashes, their mlitary is wiped out. They’ve lost hundreds and thousands of lives. They have nothing left!
Mollari: No, there you are wrong. They still have their pride. He tries to hide it, this one, but I can see it in his eyes. As long as it remains, they will always be a threat.
Vir: So, is that what it’s about? Pride? It’s not enough that we’ve beaten them, we have to break them?
Mollari: Yes. I’m sorry, I thought you understood that. I don’t want our people to go through this in another 100 years.
I think this illustrates the racial nature of imperialism very well.
**Season 3 Episode 5 “Voices of Authority”** See this for a plot summary.
The main political dimension to this episode is the appointment of a Political Officer to keep an eye on Sheridan. She talks a lot about his need to be more sensitive to what the Earth Government wants. She says a few other things that are worth noting:
1. She doubts that the Centauri are bent on war because Earth has a treaty with them- but in the previous year or so, the Centauri were invading planet after planet and showed no signs of stopping.
2. She says the homeless people on Earth don’t want jobs and have chosen to be homeless. She says “they’re either lazy, or they’re criminal or they’re mentally unstable.” She says that the Earth Government has promised everyone a job. But that must be something they didn’t follow up on (Captain Sheridan says the homeless can’t get jobs). At one point she admits that they re-wrote the dictionary in order to “solve” problems.
3. She talks about the expansion of McCarthy-esque policies and admits that civil rights and civil liberties will be abridged further than they already have been, and explicitly talks about keeping Earth “ideologically pure.”
**Season 3 Episode 6 “Dust to Dust”** For a plot summary see this.
There is one small bit of politics at the beginning. It's another example of the Night Watch’s McCarthyism. Captain Sheridan stands against it forcefully.
**Season 3 Episode 10 “Severed Dreams”** See this for a plot summary.
In recent episodes there was nothing that really stood out as especially political. The anti-democratic tendencies of the Earth Government have been mentioned in episodes a little earlier so I didn’t say anything till now about the political crisis on Earth when it was exposed that the President had come into power as the result of a coup. Martial law was declared, the Senate was dissolved, and in this episode, there is a full-blown civil war.
In this episode, Mars rebels against the government, and two other colonies plus Babylon 5 declare independence.
Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.
**Season 3 Episode 3 “A Day in the Strife”** See this for a plot summary.
This episode contains a fair amount of stuff about the Centauri occupation of Narn. We learn that there is a resistance and that for every Centauri killed 500 Narn are killed. The former dissolved the old Narn government and created a provisional government. The representative of it sent to B5 opposes the resistance, saying it is the wrong time. I am inclined to think, when would be the right time? This Narn collaborator vaguely talks about waiting until they’re a bit stronger and the Centauri have been lulled into a sense of false security. Between the fact that he is officially a collaborator and at one point he blames the resistance, not the Centauri, for the nightmare the Narn are experiencing, I’m inclined to dismiss his opposition to the resistance.
Looking at N. Ireland, I believe that certainly there were some times when it was a bad idea to use violence. First I have supported the cease-fire since day one. And I would agree that in the late '60s it would have been inappropriate for the IRA to have been conducting operations in N. Ireland. But after Aug. 1969 (when there were massive anti-catholic pogroms) and especially about 9 months later when, independent of the IRA, the relationship between the British Army and the nationalist community went bad, it was legitimate for the IRA to attack the security forces. After that, they usually had the backing of about 40% of the population and in my opinion the right analysis of the situation- it was very important to unite Ireland, considering what had been done to the nationalist population around 1970. As I explain here only about .3% of the IRA’s operations were aimed at killing civilians.
There is a scene in the episode which I think is worth quoting in full. The Narn representative of the new government meets wit the Centauri ambassador (Mollari) and his aide, Vir.
Mollari: You know, I was thinking of visiting your world sometime soon. I couldn’t really get a good look at it the last time I was in the area. Do you think it would be safe for someone such as myself to visit your world now?
Na’far: Yes, quite safe.
Mollari: The streets are kept clear of troublemakers, rock throwers, protestors?
Nar’far: The surviving streets are quite empty, ambassador.
Molarri: The work farms, the relocation camps, the construction gangs are all operating at capacity?
Na’far: (nodds)
Mollari: And the executions, Na’far? The executions continue?
Na’far: The executions continue.
Mollari: Progress! It’s a beautiful thing to behold, no, Vir? [to Na’far] you may contact G’Kar, now. go, go (Na’far leaves)
Vir: Was that necessary?
Mollari: They got out of their place once. We must make sure it does not happen again.
Vir: Londo, we’ve beaten them. Their cities are in ashes, their mlitary is wiped out. They’ve lost hundreds and thousands of lives. They have nothing left!
Mollari: No, there you are wrong. They still have their pride. He tries to hide it, this one, but I can see it in his eyes. As long as it remains, they will always be a threat.
Vir: So, is that what it’s about? Pride? It’s not enough that we’ve beaten them, we have to break them?
Mollari: Yes. I’m sorry, I thought you understood that. I don’t want our people to go through this in another 100 years.
I think this illustrates the racial nature of imperialism very well.
**Season 3 Episode 5 “Voices of Authority”** See this for a plot summary.
The main political dimension to this episode is the appointment of a Political Officer to keep an eye on Sheridan. She talks a lot about his need to be more sensitive to what the Earth Government wants. She says a few other things that are worth noting:
1. She doubts that the Centauri are bent on war because Earth has a treaty with them- but in the previous year or so, the Centauri were invading planet after planet and showed no signs of stopping.
2. She says the homeless people on Earth don’t want jobs and have chosen to be homeless. She says “they’re either lazy, or they’re criminal or they’re mentally unstable.” She says that the Earth Government has promised everyone a job. But that must be something they didn’t follow up on (Captain Sheridan says the homeless can’t get jobs). At one point she admits that they re-wrote the dictionary in order to “solve” problems.
3. She talks about the expansion of McCarthy-esque policies and admits that civil rights and civil liberties will be abridged further than they already have been, and explicitly talks about keeping Earth “ideologically pure.”
**Season 3 Episode 6 “Dust to Dust”** For a plot summary see this.
There is one small bit of politics at the beginning. It's another example of the Night Watch’s McCarthyism. Captain Sheridan stands against it forcefully.
**Season 3 Episode 10 “Severed Dreams”** See this for a plot summary.
In recent episodes there was nothing that really stood out as especially political. The anti-democratic tendencies of the Earth Government have been mentioned in episodes a little earlier so I didn’t say anything till now about the political crisis on Earth when it was exposed that the President had come into power as the result of a coup. Martial law was declared, the Senate was dissolved, and in this episode, there is a full-blown civil war.
In this episode, Mars rebels against the government, and two other colonies plus Babylon 5 declare independence.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Babylon 5 Reviews F
Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.
Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.
**Season 2, Episode 12 “Acts of Sacrifice”** See this for a plot summary.
There are about seven political issues here:
1) The Narn ambassador G’Kar tries to get support from Earth Alliance and the Minbari in their war with the Centauri. The ambassador from the Minbari is reluctant to see Minbar side with the Narn, partly because they were in a war just about 10 years earlier and she doesn’t want another war. And partly because they have reason to believe that if the war started going the Narns’ way, they might try to give the Centauri a dose of their own genocidal medicine. The Narn, who experienced a near-genocidal Centauri occupation when G’Kar was younger, seem to have adopted the slogan “Never Again” but sometimes sound like they might take it to the extreme of beating the Centauri race to death.
2) Tensions between the Narn and Centuri civilians on B5 are growing. In one incident a group of the latter are in a bar talking about how the Centauri Republic is now “great again” as a result of their war with the Narn. They go on to insult the Narn people. A group of Narn hear this and a fight almost starts.
3) A representative from an unfamiliar alien race comes to B5 to meet representatives of the Earth Alliance (Sheridan wants them either as allies, or as members of the League of Non-Aligned Worlds). It quickly becomes apparent that they believe they are superior and most other races are inferior.
At one point they talk about letting evolution take it’s course and letting races die off or profit without any interference such as medical help but they DO believe in medical help for their own people.
At another point they are shown the poor part of B5, where the population is mostly human. They admire what they see as a racial policy by humans of segregating the relatively inferior parts of humanity. Obviously B5 isn’t doing that but it’s interesting to see what seems like the writers of the show taking a swipe at the Earth Alliance and B5’s leadership for failing to create a utopia like the Federation in Star Trek (to a large degree the senior staff of B5 are more or less progressive but it seems like they’re dependent on Earth Alliance for funding and the poverty on Earth follows people to B5).
**Season 2 Episode 16 “In the Shadow of Z’Ha’Dum”** See this for a plot summary.
There are 1-2 political aspects to this episode. First, Captain Sheridan detains a man for questioning for more than 10 hours without charging him. The chief of security, after 10 hours, tries to convince him to let the guy go, and resigns when he won’t. As I’ve said before the chief of security seems like the least progressive of B5’s command staff and seems more concerned about getting in trouble than about the civil liberties issue involved. I’m tempted to say that this seriously erodes my opinion of Captain Sheridan as a progressive, but on the other hand, he was detaining the guy for non-political reasons. It wasn’t a case of political dissent or alleged criminal activity. His wife was lost on a space exploration mission and he had good reason to think that the detainee knew what really happened to her. It was still wrong to detain the guy but I find it less offensive than I would if it were about dissent or crime. He ends up admitting to the security chief that he (Sheridan) was wrong and says it won’t happen again.
The other political thing is that the government on Earth has created a “Ministry of Peace.” Initially it sounds like something almost progressive. But it turns out that it sees (political) division and dissent in the human population as a threat to peace. They depoliticize dissent and see it as a criminal or psychological problem and recruit people to report such behavior to them, so that dissidents can be “helped.” Even worse, this is an illegal and more or less right-wing government (it’s not super-clear, but if they continue some of the policies of the last President and you combine that with new actions and attitudes of the new regime, they’re fairly right-wing (especially if the more offensive senators are aligned with the new President and I don’t think there’s anything saying otherwise)). Below is the full transcript of the Ministry of Peace representative trying to recruit people:
MoP: In the last 10 years Earth has rebuilt it’s defenses magnificently. We can protect our people from physical harm. But is that enough? We cannot hope to make peace with other civilizations until we have found peace with ourselves. And that, quite simply, is what the Ministry of Peace is all about. Now as Babylon 5 has an early warning system to detect possible attacks, we at the Ministry of Peace have created a system of our own. We call it the Night Watch, named after those brave citizens who stood vigil in the darkness against possible enemies. It’s a completely volunteer organization, officially endorsed by Earth Dome [the government]. Members receive 50 credits per week above and beyond their regular salaries for services rendered.
POSSIBLE RECRUIT: What kind of services?
MoP: Mainly just to be present wearing the colors of the Night Watch. Raise public awareness, make them start thinking about peace, about the way they treat one another.
POSSIBLE RECRUIT 2: I can’t believe Earth would pay us 50 credits a week just to walk around the station.
MoP: Correct. As the name implies you must also be watchful. Peace can be made or broken with a gun, a word, an idea, even a thought. Now those who work against peace sow the seeds of discontent. They plant stories. They undermine the public good. It’s not because they are necessarily evil, it’s because they don’t know any better. They’re unhappy. And they lash out in the only way they can. So if we are made aware of these problems as they occur then we can find these people. We can talk to these people. We can embrace them in the arms of society while at the same time protecting society from misinformation and harmful ideas. We’re less interested in actions than we are in attitudes. We must help protect society against it’s own worst instincts. By taking these bold steps we will help to ensure a better future for everyone. I’m proud to be a part of it and I hope you’ll all join me in becoming part of the Night Watch.
**Season 2 Episode 18 “Confessions and Lamentations”** See this for a plot summary.
Although I might not change this, when I wrote (in the intros to these reviews) that Babylon 5 wasn’t as progressive as Star Trek, I was thinking partly of the issue of gay rights. Neither ST nor B5 have any LGBT characters (well, ST kind of does, in the MIRROR UNIVERSE but that’s only about .3% of all the Star Trek episodes and B5 MIGHT have one character who is both male and female but it’s unclear and only comes up very briefly in one episode (he only outs himself to one person, who seems uncomfortable with it)). But ST drops some hints in at least 4 episodes that homophobia is wrong. I know that in the 1980s homophobia was a big part of our nation’s response to HIV/AIDS and I think that it’s probably been a slowly declining part of it since then. With that in mind, B5 DID do (in 1995) an episode basically about HIV/AIDS.
It’s revealed that an alien race, the Markab, are experiencing a deadly plague. At one point Dr. Franklin compares the response of the Markab to the plague with the heterosexual population's response to HIV/AIDS.
After he learns about the plague, he has a conversation with a Markab doctor who had been trying to cover it up. Three of the Markab doctor’s comments are worth quoting directly.
“It is not something we talk about…. The disease only appeared once before. Centuries ago. On a small island on our world, noted for certain excesses. When it was struck down, the rest of my people believed it was a punishment by the gods for their lack of morality.”
“The first new case of Drafa [the plague] was detected nearly a year ago. The family was so scandalized by it that they lied about what killed him.”
“Some of us have been working to find a cure without enough money or resources. They [the government] don’t want to talk about it, as if the very subject makes them dirty.”
In the end, it appears that at least 99% of the Markab population is dead. And they might have found a cure if not for their hostility towards those they considered immoral.
**Season 2 Episode 22 “The Fall of Night”** See this for a plot summary.
We learn towards the beginning that the Centuari have been attacking some of the space and planets of it’s neighbors. Their ambassador claims it is to create a buffer zone around the space of the Centauris and claims it will reduce tension and war, which makes no sense. Even if the races attacked DON’T go to war with the Centauri immediately it’s unlikely they will resume normal relations with their invader before many years have passed and they will make arrangements to repel any more attacks, which will mean a lot of military forces close to the areas seized for the buffer zone.
Most of this episode is about the growing schism between B5 and the Earth Alliance. Two representatives of the Ministry of Peace (one from the Night Watch (I say a lot about it in the second review in this post)) come aboard B5 to talk with various ambassadors. The one who leads the Night Watch has an interesting conversation with a recurring minor character in the security force who is a (dissenting) member of NW. The MoP leader uses the word sedition to refer to the threat being dealt with by the NW, and mentioned the following examples: A) a store owner who felt that the regulations for imports were “nuts;” B) dock-workers consistently late for work (allegedly affecting efficiency); C) poor residents of B5 talking to reporters about poverty there and back on Earth (finally evidence that the new regime brought in by a hidden coup is capitalist); D) and lastly two more shop owners openly criticizing presidential decisions.
This next subject over-laps with the last one, but there is a lot about the Centauri-Narn conflict. I sometimes encounter minor topics that I decide to skip and in recent episodes there have been a few things about that conflict that I want to mention here. First, when the Centauri (strategically helped by the evil Shadows) find the Narn Homeworld unguarded, they bombard it from orbit with things called “mass drivers” which are banned by practically everyone except the Centauri. Here and there the B5 command staff have been fairly sympathetic to the Narn side of things, and with good reason. The last time the Centauri occupied Narn planets and space it was genocidal and after the first time a Narn outpost is occupied by the Centauri in this series (season 2, episode 9), initially the latter wanted to keep the civilian population for forced labor (they only abandon that plan when faced with a threat by Earth to send observers).
In this episode, a Narn heavy cruiser that somehow survived the defeat of Narn by the Centauri comes to B5 seeking sanctuary. After that, the leader of the MoP tells Sheridan that Earth has successfully negotiated a non-aggression treaty with the Centauri. A member of the NW who is stationed in Command and Control reports the hidden presence of the ship. A Centauri warship shows up and ends up being destroyed by B5 while the Narn escape.
At the end of the episode, two things happen: 1) the Centauri invade more space of the League of Non-Aligned Worlds races, and 2) a shop-keeper is taken away by NW members.
Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it goes further than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.
**Season 2, Episode 12 “Acts of Sacrifice”** See this for a plot summary.
There are about seven political issues here:
1) The Narn ambassador G’Kar tries to get support from Earth Alliance and the Minbari in their war with the Centauri. The ambassador from the Minbari is reluctant to see Minbar side with the Narn, partly because they were in a war just about 10 years earlier and she doesn’t want another war. And partly because they have reason to believe that if the war started going the Narns’ way, they might try to give the Centauri a dose of their own genocidal medicine. The Narn, who experienced a near-genocidal Centauri occupation when G’Kar was younger, seem to have adopted the slogan “Never Again” but sometimes sound like they might take it to the extreme of beating the Centauri race to death.
2) Tensions between the Narn and Centuri civilians on B5 are growing. In one incident a group of the latter are in a bar talking about how the Centauri Republic is now “great again” as a result of their war with the Narn. They go on to insult the Narn people. A group of Narn hear this and a fight almost starts.
3) A representative from an unfamiliar alien race comes to B5 to meet representatives of the Earth Alliance (Sheridan wants them either as allies, or as members of the League of Non-Aligned Worlds). It quickly becomes apparent that they believe they are superior and most other races are inferior.
At one point they talk about letting evolution take it’s course and letting races die off or profit without any interference such as medical help but they DO believe in medical help for their own people.
At another point they are shown the poor part of B5, where the population is mostly human. They admire what they see as a racial policy by humans of segregating the relatively inferior parts of humanity. Obviously B5 isn’t doing that but it’s interesting to see what seems like the writers of the show taking a swipe at the Earth Alliance and B5’s leadership for failing to create a utopia like the Federation in Star Trek (to a large degree the senior staff of B5 are more or less progressive but it seems like they’re dependent on Earth Alliance for funding and the poverty on Earth follows people to B5).
**Season 2 Episode 16 “In the Shadow of Z’Ha’Dum”** See this for a plot summary.
There are 1-2 political aspects to this episode. First, Captain Sheridan detains a man for questioning for more than 10 hours without charging him. The chief of security, after 10 hours, tries to convince him to let the guy go, and resigns when he won’t. As I’ve said before the chief of security seems like the least progressive of B5’s command staff and seems more concerned about getting in trouble than about the civil liberties issue involved. I’m tempted to say that this seriously erodes my opinion of Captain Sheridan as a progressive, but on the other hand, he was detaining the guy for non-political reasons. It wasn’t a case of political dissent or alleged criminal activity. His wife was lost on a space exploration mission and he had good reason to think that the detainee knew what really happened to her. It was still wrong to detain the guy but I find it less offensive than I would if it were about dissent or crime. He ends up admitting to the security chief that he (Sheridan) was wrong and says it won’t happen again.
The other political thing is that the government on Earth has created a “Ministry of Peace.” Initially it sounds like something almost progressive. But it turns out that it sees (political) division and dissent in the human population as a threat to peace. They depoliticize dissent and see it as a criminal or psychological problem and recruit people to report such behavior to them, so that dissidents can be “helped.” Even worse, this is an illegal and more or less right-wing government (it’s not super-clear, but if they continue some of the policies of the last President and you combine that with new actions and attitudes of the new regime, they’re fairly right-wing (especially if the more offensive senators are aligned with the new President and I don’t think there’s anything saying otherwise)). Below is the full transcript of the Ministry of Peace representative trying to recruit people:
MoP: In the last 10 years Earth has rebuilt it’s defenses magnificently. We can protect our people from physical harm. But is that enough? We cannot hope to make peace with other civilizations until we have found peace with ourselves. And that, quite simply, is what the Ministry of Peace is all about. Now as Babylon 5 has an early warning system to detect possible attacks, we at the Ministry of Peace have created a system of our own. We call it the Night Watch, named after those brave citizens who stood vigil in the darkness against possible enemies. It’s a completely volunteer organization, officially endorsed by Earth Dome [the government]. Members receive 50 credits per week above and beyond their regular salaries for services rendered.
POSSIBLE RECRUIT: What kind of services?
MoP: Mainly just to be present wearing the colors of the Night Watch. Raise public awareness, make them start thinking about peace, about the way they treat one another.
POSSIBLE RECRUIT 2: I can’t believe Earth would pay us 50 credits a week just to walk around the station.
MoP: Correct. As the name implies you must also be watchful. Peace can be made or broken with a gun, a word, an idea, even a thought. Now those who work against peace sow the seeds of discontent. They plant stories. They undermine the public good. It’s not because they are necessarily evil, it’s because they don’t know any better. They’re unhappy. And they lash out in the only way they can. So if we are made aware of these problems as they occur then we can find these people. We can talk to these people. We can embrace them in the arms of society while at the same time protecting society from misinformation and harmful ideas. We’re less interested in actions than we are in attitudes. We must help protect society against it’s own worst instincts. By taking these bold steps we will help to ensure a better future for everyone. I’m proud to be a part of it and I hope you’ll all join me in becoming part of the Night Watch.
**Season 2 Episode 18 “Confessions and Lamentations”** See this for a plot summary.
Although I might not change this, when I wrote (in the intros to these reviews) that Babylon 5 wasn’t as progressive as Star Trek, I was thinking partly of the issue of gay rights. Neither ST nor B5 have any LGBT characters (well, ST kind of does, in the MIRROR UNIVERSE but that’s only about .3% of all the Star Trek episodes and B5 MIGHT have one character who is both male and female but it’s unclear and only comes up very briefly in one episode (he only outs himself to one person, who seems uncomfortable with it)). But ST drops some hints in at least 4 episodes that homophobia is wrong. I know that in the 1980s homophobia was a big part of our nation’s response to HIV/AIDS and I think that it’s probably been a slowly declining part of it since then. With that in mind, B5 DID do (in 1995) an episode basically about HIV/AIDS.
It’s revealed that an alien race, the Markab, are experiencing a deadly plague. At one point Dr. Franklin compares the response of the Markab to the plague with the heterosexual population's response to HIV/AIDS.
After he learns about the plague, he has a conversation with a Markab doctor who had been trying to cover it up. Three of the Markab doctor’s comments are worth quoting directly.
“It is not something we talk about…. The disease only appeared once before. Centuries ago. On a small island on our world, noted for certain excesses. When it was struck down, the rest of my people believed it was a punishment by the gods for their lack of morality.”
“The first new case of Drafa [the plague] was detected nearly a year ago. The family was so scandalized by it that they lied about what killed him.”
“Some of us have been working to find a cure without enough money or resources. They [the government] don’t want to talk about it, as if the very subject makes them dirty.”
In the end, it appears that at least 99% of the Markab population is dead. And they might have found a cure if not for their hostility towards those they considered immoral.
**Season 2 Episode 22 “The Fall of Night”** See this for a plot summary.
We learn towards the beginning that the Centuari have been attacking some of the space and planets of it’s neighbors. Their ambassador claims it is to create a buffer zone around the space of the Centauris and claims it will reduce tension and war, which makes no sense. Even if the races attacked DON’T go to war with the Centauri immediately it’s unlikely they will resume normal relations with their invader before many years have passed and they will make arrangements to repel any more attacks, which will mean a lot of military forces close to the areas seized for the buffer zone.
Most of this episode is about the growing schism between B5 and the Earth Alliance. Two representatives of the Ministry of Peace (one from the Night Watch (I say a lot about it in the second review in this post)) come aboard B5 to talk with various ambassadors. The one who leads the Night Watch has an interesting conversation with a recurring minor character in the security force who is a (dissenting) member of NW. The MoP leader uses the word sedition to refer to the threat being dealt with by the NW, and mentioned the following examples: A) a store owner who felt that the regulations for imports were “nuts;” B) dock-workers consistently late for work (allegedly affecting efficiency); C) poor residents of B5 talking to reporters about poverty there and back on Earth (finally evidence that the new regime brought in by a hidden coup is capitalist); D) and lastly two more shop owners openly criticizing presidential decisions.
This next subject over-laps with the last one, but there is a lot about the Centauri-Narn conflict. I sometimes encounter minor topics that I decide to skip and in recent episodes there have been a few things about that conflict that I want to mention here. First, when the Centauri (strategically helped by the evil Shadows) find the Narn Homeworld unguarded, they bombard it from orbit with things called “mass drivers” which are banned by practically everyone except the Centauri. Here and there the B5 command staff have been fairly sympathetic to the Narn side of things, and with good reason. The last time the Centauri occupied Narn planets and space it was genocidal and after the first time a Narn outpost is occupied by the Centauri in this series (season 2, episode 9), initially the latter wanted to keep the civilian population for forced labor (they only abandon that plan when faced with a threat by Earth to send observers).
In this episode, a Narn heavy cruiser that somehow survived the defeat of Narn by the Centauri comes to B5 seeking sanctuary. After that, the leader of the MoP tells Sheridan that Earth has successfully negotiated a non-aggression treaty with the Centauri. A member of the NW who is stationed in Command and Control reports the hidden presence of the ship. A Centauri warship shows up and ends up being destroyed by B5 while the Narn escape.
At the end of the episode, two things happen: 1) the Centauri invade more space of the League of Non-Aligned Worlds races, and 2) a shop-keeper is taken away by NW members.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Two New Poems: "Black and White, Unite and Fight," and "Surf the Volga"
These are two of my poems. For more on how I "write" them, see this. The rest of my poems can be found by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom of this post. There's about seven pages so click on "older posts" at the bottom of the first lyrics page. The second poem below is not based on offensive lyrics, I just changed the subject of a progressive song.
“Black and White, Unite and Fight” based on “Unity is Power” by Kill, Baby Kill. Original lyrics can be found here.
1. The first half of the third verse is about the split in the AFL-CIO that produced Change to Win. Although I've practically never had any official connection to the labor movement and am not incredibly familiar with labor issues, I wrote those lines after reading "Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice" by Bill Fletcher Jr. and Fernado Gapasin. It is partly about why Change to Win was wrong to leave and after reading it I briefly discussed it with Fletcher Jr. to make sure he hadn't changed his mind.
2. I got the name from a fairly creative and inspirational t-shirt promoting a far-left socialist group, but I’m not saying which one because some people would get the wrong idea about my beliefs.
**3. 26% of this version is me, 74% is the original.
4. I give this poem four stars out of five.
So much wrong in our country today, the worker’s being oppressed.
What’s the point of fighting each other, when our country’s in a mess?
Killer cops on every corner, Chambers of Commerce in every town.
The Republicans are always wrong, they’re trying to bring our country down.
This is the voice of the socialists, a voice against white pride
calling out with a message now to stick together and not divide
So listen workers, listen well, unity’s a must.
If we can’t achieve to unite as one our efforts will go bust
Chorus
Unity is power to defend our class. Unity’s the weapon as we struggle en masse.
Unity’s the answer to the worker’s call.
Unity will set our brothers and sisters free. Unity will bring us final victory.
If we stand united, we will never fall.
That senseless split only makes the bosses thrilled.
union workers we must be reconciled and rebuild
Shoulder to shoulder, brothers and sisters, make sure we’ll never fail.
So stick together and act as one, united we’ll prevail.
Chorus
To all of those who share our beliefs: United we will win
Unity, brings victory, it's the power from within
So join our ranks on the battlefield, together side by side
To fight the people's enemies and crush ‘em nationwide
**********
“Surf the Volga” based on “Surf Nicaragua” by Sacred Reich (despite their name, their politics are very progressive- I'm fairly familiar with all of their music and at least some of it is more or less socially liberal and it's also economically progressive and it's anti-war). Original Lyrics are here.
1. This is about the battle of Stalingrad in WWII. It’s from the perspective of a dissident German.
2. The Volga is a large river going through Stalingrad.
3. The “May” reference is about May Day.
4. **65% of this version is me, 35% is the original.
5. I give this poem four stars out of five.
6. UPDATE 3/13/19 The "giants" part of the very last line is based on a comment a senior Japanese Admiral made about the effect (on America) of attacking Pearl Harbor.
7. UPDATE 3/11/20 I changed "in may" to "on the 1st of May."
I know a place Where you're all going to go
They'll pay you to kill If You're eighteen years old
First You'll need a haircut And then some new clothes
They'll stick you on the Eastern Front where the blood flows
CHORUS:
You fight for the fuhrer and the Fatherland
You ask “what am I doing here?” it’s not your homeland
But now it's too late, You're entering Stalingrad
You’re fighting Soviet workers at the gate, those you should call comrade
What is this we’re fighting for, What's the ultimate goal?
Empire and genocide, at the price of Germany’s soul
The mass graves are deeper Every single day
Full of Jews, communists, and those who are gay
CHORUS:
invading nation after nation, in the east and the west
We thought that we couldn’t lose, we thought we were the best
But we underrated the US and the Soviets that celebrate on the 1st of May
We have awoken two giants, and our defeat is on it’s way
“Black and White, Unite and Fight” based on “Unity is Power” by Kill, Baby Kill. Original lyrics can be found here.
1. The first half of the third verse is about the split in the AFL-CIO that produced Change to Win. Although I've practically never had any official connection to the labor movement and am not incredibly familiar with labor issues, I wrote those lines after reading "Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice" by Bill Fletcher Jr. and Fernado Gapasin. It is partly about why Change to Win was wrong to leave and after reading it I briefly discussed it with Fletcher Jr. to make sure he hadn't changed his mind.
2. I got the name from a fairly creative and inspirational t-shirt promoting a far-left socialist group, but I’m not saying which one because some people would get the wrong idea about my beliefs.
**3. 26% of this version is me, 74% is the original.
4. I give this poem four stars out of five.
So much wrong in our country today, the worker’s being oppressed.
What’s the point of fighting each other, when our country’s in a mess?
Killer cops on every corner, Chambers of Commerce in every town.
The Republicans are always wrong, they’re trying to bring our country down.
This is the voice of the socialists, a voice against white pride
calling out with a message now to stick together and not divide
So listen workers, listen well, unity’s a must.
If we can’t achieve to unite as one our efforts will go bust
Chorus
Unity is power to defend our class. Unity’s the weapon as we struggle en masse.
Unity’s the answer to the worker’s call.
Unity will set our brothers and sisters free. Unity will bring us final victory.
If we stand united, we will never fall.
That senseless split only makes the bosses thrilled.
union workers we must be reconciled and rebuild
Shoulder to shoulder, brothers and sisters, make sure we’ll never fail.
So stick together and act as one, united we’ll prevail.
Chorus
To all of those who share our beliefs: United we will win
Unity, brings victory, it's the power from within
So join our ranks on the battlefield, together side by side
To fight the people's enemies and crush ‘em nationwide
**********
“Surf the Volga” based on “Surf Nicaragua” by Sacred Reich (despite their name, their politics are very progressive- I'm fairly familiar with all of their music and at least some of it is more or less socially liberal and it's also economically progressive and it's anti-war). Original Lyrics are here.
1. This is about the battle of Stalingrad in WWII. It’s from the perspective of a dissident German.
2. The Volga is a large river going through Stalingrad.
3. The “May” reference is about May Day.
4. **65% of this version is me, 35% is the original.
5. I give this poem four stars out of five.
6. UPDATE 3/13/19 The "giants" part of the very last line is based on a comment a senior Japanese Admiral made about the effect (on America) of attacking Pearl Harbor.
7. UPDATE 3/11/20 I changed "in may" to "on the 1st of May."
I know a place Where you're all going to go
They'll pay you to kill If You're eighteen years old
First You'll need a haircut And then some new clothes
They'll stick you on the Eastern Front where the blood flows
CHORUS:
You fight for the fuhrer and the Fatherland
You ask “what am I doing here?” it’s not your homeland
But now it's too late, You're entering Stalingrad
You’re fighting Soviet workers at the gate, those you should call comrade
What is this we’re fighting for, What's the ultimate goal?
Empire and genocide, at the price of Germany’s soul
The mass graves are deeper Every single day
Full of Jews, communists, and those who are gay
CHORUS:
invading nation after nation, in the east and the west
We thought that we couldn’t lose, we thought we were the best
But we underrated the US and the Soviets that celebrate on the 1st of May
We have awoken two giants, and our defeat is on it’s way
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Babylon 5 Reviews E
Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.
Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it is more significant than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.
**Season 2 Episode 6 “A Spider in the Web”** See this for a plot summary.
There is one political aspect that definitely needs to be mentioned and a couple others that are also worth mentioning.
First, an Earth businessman comes to B5 to do some negotiating for a business effort on the Earth colony of Mars. Captain Sheridan is asked by an Earth Senator to spy on him. Their conversation I think is worth quoting in full (at the very least SOME of what was said is important enough to be quoted):
Senator Voudreau: Captain Sheridan.
Sheridan: Senator, what can I do for you?
Senator: Taro Isogi, chief executive of FutureCorp. has arranged a meeting on Babylon 5 with Amanda Carter, a representative of the Mars Provisional Government. Carter is an outspoken advocate of mars independence and we suspect FutureCorp. is conspiring with her to finance another rebellion on Mars Colony.
Sheridan: Do you have any proof?
Senator: We know FutureCorp desperately wants a foot-hold in space. An exclusive trade and services agreement with Mars would give it to them, if they could move the current Mars conglomerate out. Many of the members wanted to pull out after the last rebellion. Another would have them running like river rats.
Sheridan: I understand your concern. But there’s not much I can do about it. I have no authority over corporate negotiations. Babylon 5 is neutral territory. Any race can negotiate here without interference, even our own.
Senator: This is a possible threat to Earth Alliance security Captain and as such we are asking you to check it out. nothing official. just keep an eye peeled and an ear open. and report anything of interest to me.
Sheridan: with all due respect senator my duties as commander of B5 don’t include spying on civilians.
Senator: these are volatile times, Captain. practicalities are more important than principles if lives are to saved. I’ll expect to hear from you soon.
I think this illustrates that the Earth Alliance is imperialist towards Mars, although I believe the conflict and background to the conflict is probably similar to what happened with Britain and the 13 American colonies. It also may be a sign that the Earth Alliance was becoming openly undemocratic after the coup that happened at the end of the first season (that is, they might be behaving less democratically than they were before the coup (that might seem like a stupid statement, but as some readers might not know, the coup took place when the President was killed in an APPARENTLY accidental explosion- it wasn't SEEN as a coup by hardly anyone, but viewers know that the then-Vice President was responsible)). It seems like security must be spying in some of their investigations, which if done when a judge with very high standards for that sort of thing says they can, would almost definitely be okay with me. In general, and in this specific case, I like what Sheridan has to say about neutrality and civil liberties on B5. The Senator seems willing to spin ridiculous conspiracy theories about Mars if they help Earth retain control of that planet.
There is also some other talk about the cause of Martian independence. The Earth businessman believes that his plans will make Mars self-sufficient and that will lead to independence non-violently. I’m not sure how true that sort of thing is (in reality or on this show). I guess it would make Mars less dependent on Earth, but I haven’t gotten the impression that Earth opposes Martian independence because Mars is not self-suffient (although if the problem is partly about convincing more residents of Mars to support independence, than I guess less economic and developmental dependence on Earth would help). And economic development might possibly make Earth less willing to leave Mars, if that development would mean more tax revenue, for example.
Some relevant facts about the North of Ireland:
1. I read once or twice that one reason the British and Unionists retained Counties Fermanagh and Tyrone when N. Ireland was formed is that a four county statelet wouldn’t be economically viable.
2. On a related note, a lot of people in the 1960s believed that new economic developments in the North would result in equality and a decline in sectarianism but it got worse. Part of what led to that is that the old NI-based and Unionist-owned companies were being replaced by foreign firms who didn’t care what someone’s religion was. Which meant that Protestant workers benefited from discrimination and sectarian attitudes in general less than they used to. They did not take that change lying down.
3. Lastly, some of the government actions of the Unionists in the 1960s (those which were in conflict with the modicum of movement towards equality) involved shifting development away from equality for Catholics. They cut a railroad to Derry; when they wanted to place a new university in the West they choose largely Protestant Coleraine instead of largely Catholic Derry (Coleraine is also pretty close to the East); and when an expert on development suggested a new city in the West they instead developed one just outside the Belfast area.
**Season 2 Episode 9 “The Coming of Shadows”** See this for a plot summary.
When the leader of the Centauri (Emperor Turhan) comes to B5, G’Kar (the Narn Ambassador) tries to get him banned by Sheridan. We hear that the Centauri occupation of Narn (which lasted about 100 years and ended about 15-30 years earlier) involved the strip-mining of the planet and the death of 100,000 Narn (and that may have been just one incident). Sheridan points out that while Turhan’s FATHER was responsible for that occupation, the Emperor was trying to make amends with the Narn. Sherdian seems to understand that what happened to the Narn was horrible, but encouraged G’Kar to start a dialogue with Turhan. When Sheridan refuses to ban the Centauri leader, G’Kar plans to assassinate Turhan. Before he has the chance, the Centauri is taken to the med lab and within hours is dead. G’Kar learns that he came to B5 to apologize to a Narn (specifically G-Kar, a governmental official) for everything his people did to the Narn. Specifically he said: “We were wrong. The hatred between our people can never end until someone is willing to say 'I’m sorry' and try and find a way to make things right again. To atone for our actions.”
In response to a set-back for his political associates in a domestic Centauri political battle, Molari has his allies the Shadows attack and defeat a Narn colony which is subsequently occupied by the Centauris. Right before he learns that the Centauri were responsible for the attack, G’Kar does try some dialogue with Molari. G’Kar forsees another genocidal occupation of Narn planets by the Centauri. The likelihood of it being genocidal is confirmed when the latter initially refuse to allow the civilian population to leave the colony. Molari actually says they’ll be kept busy, and when the Minbari ambassador suggests that means labor camps, Molari actually responds by saying they’ll just be getting re-training! That’s practically an admission that they were planning the creation of labor camps (Molari agrees to let the civilians leave when Earth threatens to send in observers who will investigate what is happening to them and exactly what happened with the initial attack). At roughly the same time, the Narn declare war against the Centauri.
Lastly, there’s one bit of civil liberties when Sheridan expresses alarm at the possibility that his staff eavesdropped on diplomatic communications. I can only imagine how he’d respond to what the American NSA has done.
Even without hindsight knowledge of Turhan’s intentions, I think Sheridan had a good idea encouraging G’Kar to attempt a dialogue with him. Assuming Turhan didn’t believe that the Centauri deserved an apology from the Narn, what he said about reconciliation between the two races was good. At the end, I think that the Narn were not only justified but correct in declaring war on the Centauri- as they explained in G’Kar’s statement, they won’t allow another 100 years of genocide. It’s an even better statement when seen in the context of Molari’s admission that Narn civilians would be used as forced labor.
**Season 2, Episode 10 “GROPOS”** See this for a plot summary.
There are about seven political aspects to this episode. It’s set against the background of an Earth military force waiting on B5 for orders to help one side of an alien civil war.
1. As part of the preparations for the attack, B5 is given a major weapons systems upgrade. Sheridan sees conflict between that and B5 being a place for peace-making. It reminds me of a quote of Einstein’s that you can’t simultaneously prepare for and prevent war. I don’t embrace it whole-heartedly (I’m not a pacifist and believe that as horrible as I’m sure it is, war is sometimes necessary, and/or helpful, and/or justified) but I think there’s a fair amount of truth to it. As I’ve said elsewhere on this blog the “posture” of the US military is sort of saying “don’t fuck with us” to most of the world. The thing is I think in that situation some people will WANT to fuck with us (I know there are other reasons for hostility to the US, but I think that’s part of it).
2. Sheridan learns that Earth is helping one side of the alien civil war so that they can have a presence in that part of space, a part that is strategically close to the front line of the war between the Centauri and the Narn. In an earlier conversation the assault force commander says that with the Narn-Centauri war going on the other alien races will get more aggressive. This seems fairly militaristic on the part of Earth. I also wonder if you could call it racist towards the other alien races that will allegedly get more aggressive because of the Narn and the Centauri. It SOUNDS like it MIGHT be a legitimate concern considering what I’ve seen in movies about bar brawls starting. On the other hand, I believe it’s been established that Earth is xenophobic.
3. We are reminded that B5’s doctor refuses to do exobiology work for the military when what they want are better ways to biologically or genetically wipe out alien life. In fact most of the conversation in which he explains that to his Marine father in this episode is a good example of human racism- from his father. He doesn’t pull any punches when he lets his dad know how offended he is by that.
4. There is a minor hate crime committed by a few Marines against the Minbari ambassador. They harass her for appearing part-human, surround her with her back against a wall and threaten her before another Marine intervenes.
5. The arrival of six large transports for the Marines required the dock workers to work a lot more than usual, and Sheridan has Ivanova arrange for paid time off for them as compensation for their extra work.
**Season 2, Episode 11 “All Alone in the Night”** See this for a plot summary.
There are two political issues here that are basically about the role of the military in politics.
We learn that traditionally the 9-member governing body of the Minbarri is divided between the three castes on Minbar, with the warrior, religious, and worker castes each getting 3 seats. When Delenn is replaced (because they disapprove of the transformation she went through), it is by a member of the warrior caste instead of someone from her own religious caste, thus giving the warriors 4 seats out of nine. She expresses serious concern about this. The new member from the warrior caste argues that since they are the ones who fight the wars, they should have greater representation than the workers or the religious caste.
I certainly don’t think there should be any formal expansion of power that the military have in relationship to government policy. To a large degree I think influence by the military here in the US depends on who the elected civilian leaders are and how THEY feel about the military- do they unquestioningly agree with whatever the military says about foreign policy and war? And for better or worse, the fact is that when vets run for office a certain section of the population give them a few extra points for being vets (and sometimes that involves some votes for PROGRESSIVE, anti-war vets). Although I would love to see free college education for everyone who gets accepted to a college in this country, for now people in the military get a lot of help paying for college. And then there are other things like veterans’ medical benefits, Memorial Day, etc. So it’s not like our society doesn’t recognize, for better or worse, the sacrifices made by service men and women (sometimes for a good cause but usually not (that statement is referring to ALL of the history of the US)).
There was an interesting episode on the TV show “The West Wing” in, I think, the first season. There is a violent incident involving people who are Arab and/or Muslim and might be called terrorists. The President’s personal physician, a Navy doctor, is killed. In the Situation Room the military propose some kind of minimal armed response against a state that might be partly responsible (I think it may have been Syria). The President demands something more aggressive, so the senior military officers leave and then return to the White House with a proposal that would be very bad for the civilian population of part of Syria (much worse than it would have been under their earlier proposal) and get the President to accept the earlier proposal. (I can’t remember if this was before or after the President started acting in line with his very liberal-progressive principles, but in any case it was weird because he had those principles)
The second issue is the existence of people in the military who are either progressives and/or believe very strongly in democracy in the face of some degree of authoritarianism. We learn that since Earth President Santiago was assassinated (the official line is that it was an accident) a resistance has developed in the military and Sheridan is part of it and brings his Executive Officer Ivanova, security chief, and B5’s head doctor into the conspiracy. It’s said that Santiago was a friend of B5, but we also know that he was budget-cutting, xenophobic, and isolationist which might have meant anti-war although I don’t think we can be sure of that (he was also possibly anti-labor). But apparently his replacement is worse- after the Narn-Centuari war starts he is quite ready to get into inter-stellar fights without any apparent progressive ideas guiding that (although I lean heavily towards non-violence, it IS possible for force to be used for progressive goals and as I watch the show I would be less concerned about the new President of Earth if he were guided by progressive values); we can probably assume he is continuing the budget-cutting, that he is probably an opponent of Martian Independence, and that he is xenophobic. As we see in the 3rd and 4th seasons, there is a Civil War on Earth over the legitimacy of Santiago’s successor.
I’m not going to cover more than .001% of this subject, but I think there are progressives in state military organizations (i.e. the US Army). I knew a democratic socialist who joined the military to pay for school. In the mid-1970s a fascist dictatorship in Portugal was overthrown by elements of the military who then gave up power and a democracy was created.
Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it is more significant than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.
**Season 2 Episode 6 “A Spider in the Web”** See this for a plot summary.
There is one political aspect that definitely needs to be mentioned and a couple others that are also worth mentioning.
First, an Earth businessman comes to B5 to do some negotiating for a business effort on the Earth colony of Mars. Captain Sheridan is asked by an Earth Senator to spy on him. Their conversation I think is worth quoting in full (at the very least SOME of what was said is important enough to be quoted):
Senator Voudreau: Captain Sheridan.
Sheridan: Senator, what can I do for you?
Senator: Taro Isogi, chief executive of FutureCorp. has arranged a meeting on Babylon 5 with Amanda Carter, a representative of the Mars Provisional Government. Carter is an outspoken advocate of mars independence and we suspect FutureCorp. is conspiring with her to finance another rebellion on Mars Colony.
Sheridan: Do you have any proof?
Senator: We know FutureCorp desperately wants a foot-hold in space. An exclusive trade and services agreement with Mars would give it to them, if they could move the current Mars conglomerate out. Many of the members wanted to pull out after the last rebellion. Another would have them running like river rats.
Sheridan: I understand your concern. But there’s not much I can do about it. I have no authority over corporate negotiations. Babylon 5 is neutral territory. Any race can negotiate here without interference, even our own.
Senator: This is a possible threat to Earth Alliance security Captain and as such we are asking you to check it out. nothing official. just keep an eye peeled and an ear open. and report anything of interest to me.
Sheridan: with all due respect senator my duties as commander of B5 don’t include spying on civilians.
Senator: these are volatile times, Captain. practicalities are more important than principles if lives are to saved. I’ll expect to hear from you soon.
I think this illustrates that the Earth Alliance is imperialist towards Mars, although I believe the conflict and background to the conflict is probably similar to what happened with Britain and the 13 American colonies. It also may be a sign that the Earth Alliance was becoming openly undemocratic after the coup that happened at the end of the first season (that is, they might be behaving less democratically than they were before the coup (that might seem like a stupid statement, but as some readers might not know, the coup took place when the President was killed in an APPARENTLY accidental explosion- it wasn't SEEN as a coup by hardly anyone, but viewers know that the then-Vice President was responsible)). It seems like security must be spying in some of their investigations, which if done when a judge with very high standards for that sort of thing says they can, would almost definitely be okay with me. In general, and in this specific case, I like what Sheridan has to say about neutrality and civil liberties on B5. The Senator seems willing to spin ridiculous conspiracy theories about Mars if they help Earth retain control of that planet.
There is also some other talk about the cause of Martian independence. The Earth businessman believes that his plans will make Mars self-sufficient and that will lead to independence non-violently. I’m not sure how true that sort of thing is (in reality or on this show). I guess it would make Mars less dependent on Earth, but I haven’t gotten the impression that Earth opposes Martian independence because Mars is not self-suffient (although if the problem is partly about convincing more residents of Mars to support independence, than I guess less economic and developmental dependence on Earth would help). And economic development might possibly make Earth less willing to leave Mars, if that development would mean more tax revenue, for example.
Some relevant facts about the North of Ireland:
1. I read once or twice that one reason the British and Unionists retained Counties Fermanagh and Tyrone when N. Ireland was formed is that a four county statelet wouldn’t be economically viable.
2. On a related note, a lot of people in the 1960s believed that new economic developments in the North would result in equality and a decline in sectarianism but it got worse. Part of what led to that is that the old NI-based and Unionist-owned companies were being replaced by foreign firms who didn’t care what someone’s religion was. Which meant that Protestant workers benefited from discrimination and sectarian attitudes in general less than they used to. They did not take that change lying down.
3. Lastly, some of the government actions of the Unionists in the 1960s (those which were in conflict with the modicum of movement towards equality) involved shifting development away from equality for Catholics. They cut a railroad to Derry; when they wanted to place a new university in the West they choose largely Protestant Coleraine instead of largely Catholic Derry (Coleraine is also pretty close to the East); and when an expert on development suggested a new city in the West they instead developed one just outside the Belfast area.
**Season 2 Episode 9 “The Coming of Shadows”** See this for a plot summary.
When the leader of the Centauri (Emperor Turhan) comes to B5, G’Kar (the Narn Ambassador) tries to get him banned by Sheridan. We hear that the Centauri occupation of Narn (which lasted about 100 years and ended about 15-30 years earlier) involved the strip-mining of the planet and the death of 100,000 Narn (and that may have been just one incident). Sheridan points out that while Turhan’s FATHER was responsible for that occupation, the Emperor was trying to make amends with the Narn. Sherdian seems to understand that what happened to the Narn was horrible, but encouraged G’Kar to start a dialogue with Turhan. When Sheridan refuses to ban the Centauri leader, G’Kar plans to assassinate Turhan. Before he has the chance, the Centauri is taken to the med lab and within hours is dead. G’Kar learns that he came to B5 to apologize to a Narn (specifically G-Kar, a governmental official) for everything his people did to the Narn. Specifically he said: “We were wrong. The hatred between our people can never end until someone is willing to say 'I’m sorry' and try and find a way to make things right again. To atone for our actions.”
In response to a set-back for his political associates in a domestic Centauri political battle, Molari has his allies the Shadows attack and defeat a Narn colony which is subsequently occupied by the Centauris. Right before he learns that the Centauri were responsible for the attack, G’Kar does try some dialogue with Molari. G’Kar forsees another genocidal occupation of Narn planets by the Centauri. The likelihood of it being genocidal is confirmed when the latter initially refuse to allow the civilian population to leave the colony. Molari actually says they’ll be kept busy, and when the Minbari ambassador suggests that means labor camps, Molari actually responds by saying they’ll just be getting re-training! That’s practically an admission that they were planning the creation of labor camps (Molari agrees to let the civilians leave when Earth threatens to send in observers who will investigate what is happening to them and exactly what happened with the initial attack). At roughly the same time, the Narn declare war against the Centauri.
Lastly, there’s one bit of civil liberties when Sheridan expresses alarm at the possibility that his staff eavesdropped on diplomatic communications. I can only imagine how he’d respond to what the American NSA has done.
Even without hindsight knowledge of Turhan’s intentions, I think Sheridan had a good idea encouraging G’Kar to attempt a dialogue with him. Assuming Turhan didn’t believe that the Centauri deserved an apology from the Narn, what he said about reconciliation between the two races was good. At the end, I think that the Narn were not only justified but correct in declaring war on the Centauri- as they explained in G’Kar’s statement, they won’t allow another 100 years of genocide. It’s an even better statement when seen in the context of Molari’s admission that Narn civilians would be used as forced labor.
**Season 2, Episode 10 “GROPOS”** See this for a plot summary.
There are about seven political aspects to this episode. It’s set against the background of an Earth military force waiting on B5 for orders to help one side of an alien civil war.
1. As part of the preparations for the attack, B5 is given a major weapons systems upgrade. Sheridan sees conflict between that and B5 being a place for peace-making. It reminds me of a quote of Einstein’s that you can’t simultaneously prepare for and prevent war. I don’t embrace it whole-heartedly (I’m not a pacifist and believe that as horrible as I’m sure it is, war is sometimes necessary, and/or helpful, and/or justified) but I think there’s a fair amount of truth to it. As I’ve said elsewhere on this blog the “posture” of the US military is sort of saying “don’t fuck with us” to most of the world. The thing is I think in that situation some people will WANT to fuck with us (I know there are other reasons for hostility to the US, but I think that’s part of it).
2. Sheridan learns that Earth is helping one side of the alien civil war so that they can have a presence in that part of space, a part that is strategically close to the front line of the war between the Centauri and the Narn. In an earlier conversation the assault force commander says that with the Narn-Centauri war going on the other alien races will get more aggressive. This seems fairly militaristic on the part of Earth. I also wonder if you could call it racist towards the other alien races that will allegedly get more aggressive because of the Narn and the Centauri. It SOUNDS like it MIGHT be a legitimate concern considering what I’ve seen in movies about bar brawls starting. On the other hand, I believe it’s been established that Earth is xenophobic.
3. We are reminded that B5’s doctor refuses to do exobiology work for the military when what they want are better ways to biologically or genetically wipe out alien life. In fact most of the conversation in which he explains that to his Marine father in this episode is a good example of human racism- from his father. He doesn’t pull any punches when he lets his dad know how offended he is by that.
4. There is a minor hate crime committed by a few Marines against the Minbari ambassador. They harass her for appearing part-human, surround her with her back against a wall and threaten her before another Marine intervenes.
5. The arrival of six large transports for the Marines required the dock workers to work a lot more than usual, and Sheridan has Ivanova arrange for paid time off for them as compensation for their extra work.
**Season 2, Episode 11 “All Alone in the Night”** See this for a plot summary.
There are two political issues here that are basically about the role of the military in politics.
We learn that traditionally the 9-member governing body of the Minbarri is divided between the three castes on Minbar, with the warrior, religious, and worker castes each getting 3 seats. When Delenn is replaced (because they disapprove of the transformation she went through), it is by a member of the warrior caste instead of someone from her own religious caste, thus giving the warriors 4 seats out of nine. She expresses serious concern about this. The new member from the warrior caste argues that since they are the ones who fight the wars, they should have greater representation than the workers or the religious caste.
I certainly don’t think there should be any formal expansion of power that the military have in relationship to government policy. To a large degree I think influence by the military here in the US depends on who the elected civilian leaders are and how THEY feel about the military- do they unquestioningly agree with whatever the military says about foreign policy and war? And for better or worse, the fact is that when vets run for office a certain section of the population give them a few extra points for being vets (and sometimes that involves some votes for PROGRESSIVE, anti-war vets). Although I would love to see free college education for everyone who gets accepted to a college in this country, for now people in the military get a lot of help paying for college. And then there are other things like veterans’ medical benefits, Memorial Day, etc. So it’s not like our society doesn’t recognize, for better or worse, the sacrifices made by service men and women (sometimes for a good cause but usually not (that statement is referring to ALL of the history of the US)).
There was an interesting episode on the TV show “The West Wing” in, I think, the first season. There is a violent incident involving people who are Arab and/or Muslim and might be called terrorists. The President’s personal physician, a Navy doctor, is killed. In the Situation Room the military propose some kind of minimal armed response against a state that might be partly responsible (I think it may have been Syria). The President demands something more aggressive, so the senior military officers leave and then return to the White House with a proposal that would be very bad for the civilian population of part of Syria (much worse than it would have been under their earlier proposal) and get the President to accept the earlier proposal. (I can’t remember if this was before or after the President started acting in line with his very liberal-progressive principles, but in any case it was weird because he had those principles)
The second issue is the existence of people in the military who are either progressives and/or believe very strongly in democracy in the face of some degree of authoritarianism. We learn that since Earth President Santiago was assassinated (the official line is that it was an accident) a resistance has developed in the military and Sheridan is part of it and brings his Executive Officer Ivanova, security chief, and B5’s head doctor into the conspiracy. It’s said that Santiago was a friend of B5, but we also know that he was budget-cutting, xenophobic, and isolationist which might have meant anti-war although I don’t think we can be sure of that (he was also possibly anti-labor). But apparently his replacement is worse- after the Narn-Centuari war starts he is quite ready to get into inter-stellar fights without any apparent progressive ideas guiding that (although I lean heavily towards non-violence, it IS possible for force to be used for progressive goals and as I watch the show I would be less concerned about the new President of Earth if he were guided by progressive values); we can probably assume he is continuing the budget-cutting, that he is probably an opponent of Martian Independence, and that he is xenophobic. As we see in the 3rd and 4th seasons, there is a Civil War on Earth over the legitimacy of Santiago’s successor.
I’m not going to cover more than .001% of this subject, but I think there are progressives in state military organizations (i.e. the US Army). I knew a democratic socialist who joined the military to pay for school. In the mid-1970s a fascist dictatorship in Portugal was overthrown by elements of the military who then gave up power and a democracy was created.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Strategically Comprehensive
In a recent poem I created this rhyming couplet about Sinn Fein and the IRA (if you're not familiar with my poems, I should explain that I almost always write with someone else's voice, not my own)- “We started with defending our areas, now we’re on the offensive/The republican struggle is strategically comprehensive.” (The first line isn’t relevant to this but I think it’s a good rhyme) (it's a reference to the diversity of their tactics and strategy, for more on that keep reading). Not long after that I discussed with a friend in Dublin (who is also a left-wing supporter of Sinn Fein) the calls by some for SF MPs in the British Parliament (now, *7* of them!) to take their seats (the Democratic Unionist Party took 10 and there is one independent unionist). The argument that I read here and there in favor of SF doing it is that, in the context of a conflict over Brexit between most N. Ireland voters and most British voters (including what must be a majority of the Tory party), N. Ireland needs representation from more than one anti-Brexit politician (the DUP are pro-Brexit and the independent Unionist is anti-Brexit). More generally and especially after the DUP used it’s MPs to prop up the Conservative government, the argument is also that N. Ireland needs anti-Tory representation to try and help stop more austerity and other Tory initiatives.
My friend in Dublin felt that abstention should be seen as a tactic and that SF could embarrass the DUP in the state-wide Parliament and reduce the strength of the Tory/DUP arrangement.
Initially I wrote the following:
“I’ve been thinking of SF and abstentionism. My opinion of Devlin-McAliskey is not hurt by the fact that she took her seat, but I’m inclined to go with what SF says about them taking their seats. I mean, clearly their voters seem just fine with that policy. I also wonder, what is behind that policy? Would they see it as recognizing British rule over the Six-Counties? is it that they have [outside the European Parliament] absolutely zero desire to vote on laws that effect the British people the way British politicians [in the Westminster Parliament] pass laws that govern Irish people [in the North]? Also, isn’t there a good chance it would result in another split in SF- not necessarily a tiny one?
I’m open-minded about what you’re saying, but so far I’m more inclined to just back whatever decision they make about it.”
(although I usually read a LOT about N. Ireland current events in the Irish News and the BBC News, I don’t have the money or time to also read more than a few things a month from republican sources of news and opinion and thus am not REAL familiar with the current thinking in SF)
(Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey is described here)
I’ll return to talk of abstention TODAY shortly.
After the 1981 Hunger-Strike which saw prisoner Bobby Sands elected to Westminster, SF started contesting elections in N. Ireland- I believe for the first time since the ’69/’70 split that saw the Provisionals created. This was a major step forward strategically for the Republican Movement (what back then would have been called the Provisional Republican Movement and what are called in more recent decades Sinn Fein and the IRA). I believe that during most of the years 1982-1997 the PRM was doing almost everything they could do to A) put pressure on the British and the Unionists, B) strengthen their movement, and C) help people. (although I wasn’t doing N. Ireland activism at the time, I would have supported the 1994-96 cease-fire by the IRA (the now permanent cease-fire started in 1997))
I’ll be briefly describing (and here and there evaluating) each part of this effort.
Armed Struggle
First, I did some research and some estimating and some math and concluded that only in .3% of their operations did the (P)IRA attempt to kill civilians. A post about that is here. Also, even though SF’s vote was only (on average) 40% of the Nationalist vote this is not the end of the story. There is plenty of evidence that almost the entire nationalist community supported the 1981 Hunger-Strikers (see the middle third of this). There is also evidence that almost no one in the Nationalist community went to the police about crime and instead almost everyone went to the IRA (this is supported by a statement by Eamonn McCann on pages 22-23 of the 1993 edition of his book “War and an Irish Town” and by an article around 2003 in the Irish Times). Most Nationalists who didn’t support the IRA’s campaign nonetheless agreed more or less with the IRA’s goals and wanted Volunteers (IRA members) around- for defense during times of sectarian tension and for when crime HAD to be dealt with violently.
Armed struggle was many things. It was a statement to the world that (independent of how that statement was made) Republicans and Nationalists in general had serious problems with being ruled by Britain and with the inequality they experienced at the hands of the British and most of their Protestant neighbors. It was a refutation of Thatcher’s “Normalization” policy. The deaths of British soldiers, RUC officers and UDR (a locally recruited British Army unit) members made the news and underlined the occupation as such (and kind of suggested the possibility that if it weren’t for the British Army the IRA could defeat the local security forces and loyalist paramilitaries to such a degree that it would change the attitude of the Unionist population towards (and in) negotiations with their Nationalist neighbors and the Southern state). Those deaths were also aimed at sapping the will of the British to remain in N. Ireland. The bombing campaign in England had similar goals- sapping the will of the British, making the news and occasionally (in ways that RARELY resulted in civilian death) giving the British people some small sense of the terror their Army inflicted on the Nationalist population. Bombing of economic targets specifically in both England and the North was aimed at pressuring the business community into pressuring the British and the Unionists to change their attitude to negotiation with SF (bearing in mind what I write in the next paragraph (with parentheses), some IRA bombs in the North and in England were aimed largely at just disrupting life for people, to hopefully put more pressure on British and Unionist politicians). Armed struggle might have shown the security forces that they couldn’t brutalize the Nationalist community with impunity. Attacks on loyalist paramilitaries were relatively infrequent and probably rightly so- I think an argument has been made that they helped the British with their propaganda about being peace-keepers between two mutually hate-filled tribes.
(about 99% of the time that the IRA bombed civilian property the plan was to place the bomb, leave, phone in a warning, the place would be evacuated, and the bomb would go off. About 99% of the time that that was the plan that is what happened)
When I offered .3% as a relatively solid estimate for IRA operations where civilian life was targeted, I was not counting their efforts to help keep loyalist mobs outside Catholic areas and (towards the very beginning of the conflict) their efforts to help keep the security forces outside of some Catholic areas. The former saw them viewed as defenders of the Nationalist community. The latter made the “no-go” areas (especially Free Derry) possible for about two years. Including that stuff would lower it from .3% to something like .2%
As part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process after the first democratic election in South Africa, the ANC partly justified it’s use of force by saying that by attacking the infrastructure and security forces of the Apartheid state they were encouraging others to resist in other ways- that is, they showed that it was possible to strike at the state oppressing them.
Mass Struggle
Mass Struggle might be defined as the mobilization of large numbers of people for non-violent political conflict where their numbers (not arms or money or political power) are their weapons and public spaces are their battlefields- what we saw with the civil rights movements in both the US and N. Ireland. Marches and rallies around the prisoners issue (roughly 1978-1981) were organized (frequently by members or supporters of the Provisional Republican Movement). In terns of getting people in the street it was a massively successful effort, but when the prisoners struggle was over mass struggle appears to have decreased. The nationalist community broke back down into it’s constituent parts and marched separately or not at all. But SF still did organize marches and rallies and such and some WERE very large. Such actions demonstrate how DEEP a movement’s support is, and can result in helpful confrontations with the security forces, in a way more widely accepted than armed struggle.
Young People Rioting
I don’t know how many of those young people were members or supporters of the PRM but I think this is very relevant to putting pressure on the British. This was closer to being mass struggle than armed struggle was and could have been the result of mass struggle. But it also contained some plusses that were found more with armed struggle. It was probably more likely to get in the news than mass struggle, it could have resulted in serious injuries for the security forces (and often did) and even in the absence of an injury it could have sapped the will of the non-local part of the British Army, who were reminded more deeply than usual that they were unwanted in certain areas. But as it was less lethal than armed struggle and less likely (probably a LOT less likely) to result in civilian deaths caused by nationalists and republicans, it was more acceptable than armed struggle to many people.
Elections
Although I feel safe assuming that the PIRA campaign had the support of about 40% of the nationalist community in the 1970s, it is helpful to be able to point to votes for SF as proof that almost half that community DID support the PIRA’s armed campaign in the years 1982-1997. I believe in both “parliamentary” and “non-parliamentary” methods for creating political change but I, and a LOT of people attach a lot of value to how much popular support underground armies have. Election campaigns also give another chance to interact with voters and with the media and explain a party’s platform. Elected politicians, even those who don’t take their seats, might get more respect and/or a larger audience of (for example) potential converts and and might get more assistance of one sort or another from other politicians or activists, etc. (although less relevant, elections were also contested in the South)
Local Government Battles
SF not only contested local government elections, when elected they took their seats. This resulted in two different kinds of important battles engaged in by SF councilors and activists. First, to gain equality within the council- MANY SF councilors were blocked from access to the chamber, and/or to funding they and their areas were entitled to. Second, battles over issues relevant to local government. For example, around 1990 (according to the 1993 edition of McCann’s “War and an Irish Town” (p. 43)) a SF councilor in Derry led a successful campaign against the building of a toxic waste incinerator outside the city. Lastly, in general I think that sitting on local government councils proved that they were willing to try non-violent democratic engagement with their Unionist political opponents.
Propaganda
Propaganda is often defined neutrally and just means putting out a party’s message. SF did one newspaper during this time. One thing that might be sort of unusual in such situations was the HUGE number of murals in areas that were at least heavily if not mostly republican. Murals about the IRA, murals about international struggle, murals comparing the experience of nationalists to the experiences of people of color elsewhere, murals about community issues like poverty or eating disorders, murals about other topics. (I am almost certain that at least 90% of those murals were commissioned by SF, SF members or SF supporters)
International Solidarity
SF has done a fairly good job of generating international solidarity with them and with the nationalist community in some countries outside Ireland and Great Britain. But as I have explained elsewhere on this blog, in my opinion they are handicapping this work by making their approach in America much more moderate than progressive. (although significantly different, semi-successful efforts were made to mobilize supporters in Britain)
There is one tool that was used against Apartheid and that is being used against Israel that they have not pushed and that is boycott of, divestment from, and sanctions against the UK (not UN sanctions of course because of the veto the UK has in the Security Council). SF might have been silent about BDS because they knew that they didn’t have enough support globally to make it work. I go into that in a post here, starting with the paragraph that begins with “Was S. Africa much worse?”
One reason I have done this post is to say that members and supporters of the Republican Movement (and others in the Nationalist community in the North, but I have focused on SF because I support them) have done almost everything they could do to get the British out. Which makes it even more infuriating when I think of how little was done by the Left in western Europe and by the Left in America.
Abstention Today
Going back to abstention in Westminster today, exchanging some emails about it with my Dublin friend got me thinking more about SF taking their seats. I wonder if Westminster could be/should be seen by SF as just another battlefield on which to push the peace process, equality and even Irish Unity. In general it could be a forum to raise those issues. Also, it could help build a broad-based movement of British people supporting the Nationalist community if SF were to consistently vote progressively on things affecting British people like austerity, the environment, etc. (there’s a small mystery for me- the Troops Out Movement, which had good relations with SF, seems to have evaporated??????)
I should say that I believe that what we are talking about here are tactics and strategy but not principles (I have supported the 1997 IRA cease-fire since day one). I believe that the PRM usually did a great job of using them during the conflict and has usually been doing a great job using most of them since the conflict died down and basically ended (I would say around 2005) (with the exception of armed struggle and rioting the others are still being used by members and supporters of SF).
IF SF decide to take their seats, I would not criticize them about that (possibly about some of their votes, but with the exception of abortion I doubt even that would happen).
My friend in Dublin felt that abstention should be seen as a tactic and that SF could embarrass the DUP in the state-wide Parliament and reduce the strength of the Tory/DUP arrangement.
Initially I wrote the following:
“I’ve been thinking of SF and abstentionism. My opinion of Devlin-McAliskey is not hurt by the fact that she took her seat, but I’m inclined to go with what SF says about them taking their seats. I mean, clearly their voters seem just fine with that policy. I also wonder, what is behind that policy? Would they see it as recognizing British rule over the Six-Counties? is it that they have [outside the European Parliament] absolutely zero desire to vote on laws that effect the British people the way British politicians [in the Westminster Parliament] pass laws that govern Irish people [in the North]? Also, isn’t there a good chance it would result in another split in SF- not necessarily a tiny one?
I’m open-minded about what you’re saying, but so far I’m more inclined to just back whatever decision they make about it.”
(although I usually read a LOT about N. Ireland current events in the Irish News and the BBC News, I don’t have the money or time to also read more than a few things a month from republican sources of news and opinion and thus am not REAL familiar with the current thinking in SF)
(Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey is described here)
I’ll return to talk of abstention TODAY shortly.
After the 1981 Hunger-Strike which saw prisoner Bobby Sands elected to Westminster, SF started contesting elections in N. Ireland- I believe for the first time since the ’69/’70 split that saw the Provisionals created. This was a major step forward strategically for the Republican Movement (what back then would have been called the Provisional Republican Movement and what are called in more recent decades Sinn Fein and the IRA). I believe that during most of the years 1982-1997 the PRM was doing almost everything they could do to A) put pressure on the British and the Unionists, B) strengthen their movement, and C) help people. (although I wasn’t doing N. Ireland activism at the time, I would have supported the 1994-96 cease-fire by the IRA (the now permanent cease-fire started in 1997))
I’ll be briefly describing (and here and there evaluating) each part of this effort.
Armed Struggle
First, I did some research and some estimating and some math and concluded that only in .3% of their operations did the (P)IRA attempt to kill civilians. A post about that is here. Also, even though SF’s vote was only (on average) 40% of the Nationalist vote this is not the end of the story. There is plenty of evidence that almost the entire nationalist community supported the 1981 Hunger-Strikers (see the middle third of this). There is also evidence that almost no one in the Nationalist community went to the police about crime and instead almost everyone went to the IRA (this is supported by a statement by Eamonn McCann on pages 22-23 of the 1993 edition of his book “War and an Irish Town” and by an article around 2003 in the Irish Times). Most Nationalists who didn’t support the IRA’s campaign nonetheless agreed more or less with the IRA’s goals and wanted Volunteers (IRA members) around- for defense during times of sectarian tension and for when crime HAD to be dealt with violently.
Armed struggle was many things. It was a statement to the world that (independent of how that statement was made) Republicans and Nationalists in general had serious problems with being ruled by Britain and with the inequality they experienced at the hands of the British and most of their Protestant neighbors. It was a refutation of Thatcher’s “Normalization” policy. The deaths of British soldiers, RUC officers and UDR (a locally recruited British Army unit) members made the news and underlined the occupation as such (and kind of suggested the possibility that if it weren’t for the British Army the IRA could defeat the local security forces and loyalist paramilitaries to such a degree that it would change the attitude of the Unionist population towards (and in) negotiations with their Nationalist neighbors and the Southern state). Those deaths were also aimed at sapping the will of the British to remain in N. Ireland. The bombing campaign in England had similar goals- sapping the will of the British, making the news and occasionally (in ways that RARELY resulted in civilian death) giving the British people some small sense of the terror their Army inflicted on the Nationalist population. Bombing of economic targets specifically in both England and the North was aimed at pressuring the business community into pressuring the British and the Unionists to change their attitude to negotiation with SF (bearing in mind what I write in the next paragraph (with parentheses), some IRA bombs in the North and in England were aimed largely at just disrupting life for people, to hopefully put more pressure on British and Unionist politicians). Armed struggle might have shown the security forces that they couldn’t brutalize the Nationalist community with impunity. Attacks on loyalist paramilitaries were relatively infrequent and probably rightly so- I think an argument has been made that they helped the British with their propaganda about being peace-keepers between two mutually hate-filled tribes.
(about 99% of the time that the IRA bombed civilian property the plan was to place the bomb, leave, phone in a warning, the place would be evacuated, and the bomb would go off. About 99% of the time that that was the plan that is what happened)
When I offered .3% as a relatively solid estimate for IRA operations where civilian life was targeted, I was not counting their efforts to help keep loyalist mobs outside Catholic areas and (towards the very beginning of the conflict) their efforts to help keep the security forces outside of some Catholic areas. The former saw them viewed as defenders of the Nationalist community. The latter made the “no-go” areas (especially Free Derry) possible for about two years. Including that stuff would lower it from .3% to something like .2%
As part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process after the first democratic election in South Africa, the ANC partly justified it’s use of force by saying that by attacking the infrastructure and security forces of the Apartheid state they were encouraging others to resist in other ways- that is, they showed that it was possible to strike at the state oppressing them.
Mass Struggle
Mass Struggle might be defined as the mobilization of large numbers of people for non-violent political conflict where their numbers (not arms or money or political power) are their weapons and public spaces are their battlefields- what we saw with the civil rights movements in both the US and N. Ireland. Marches and rallies around the prisoners issue (roughly 1978-1981) were organized (frequently by members or supporters of the Provisional Republican Movement). In terns of getting people in the street it was a massively successful effort, but when the prisoners struggle was over mass struggle appears to have decreased. The nationalist community broke back down into it’s constituent parts and marched separately or not at all. But SF still did organize marches and rallies and such and some WERE very large. Such actions demonstrate how DEEP a movement’s support is, and can result in helpful confrontations with the security forces, in a way more widely accepted than armed struggle.
Young People Rioting
I don’t know how many of those young people were members or supporters of the PRM but I think this is very relevant to putting pressure on the British. This was closer to being mass struggle than armed struggle was and could have been the result of mass struggle. But it also contained some plusses that were found more with armed struggle. It was probably more likely to get in the news than mass struggle, it could have resulted in serious injuries for the security forces (and often did) and even in the absence of an injury it could have sapped the will of the non-local part of the British Army, who were reminded more deeply than usual that they were unwanted in certain areas. But as it was less lethal than armed struggle and less likely (probably a LOT less likely) to result in civilian deaths caused by nationalists and republicans, it was more acceptable than armed struggle to many people.
Elections
Although I feel safe assuming that the PIRA campaign had the support of about 40% of the nationalist community in the 1970s, it is helpful to be able to point to votes for SF as proof that almost half that community DID support the PIRA’s armed campaign in the years 1982-1997. I believe in both “parliamentary” and “non-parliamentary” methods for creating political change but I, and a LOT of people attach a lot of value to how much popular support underground armies have. Election campaigns also give another chance to interact with voters and with the media and explain a party’s platform. Elected politicians, even those who don’t take their seats, might get more respect and/or a larger audience of (for example) potential converts and and might get more assistance of one sort or another from other politicians or activists, etc. (although less relevant, elections were also contested in the South)
Local Government Battles
SF not only contested local government elections, when elected they took their seats. This resulted in two different kinds of important battles engaged in by SF councilors and activists. First, to gain equality within the council- MANY SF councilors were blocked from access to the chamber, and/or to funding they and their areas were entitled to. Second, battles over issues relevant to local government. For example, around 1990 (according to the 1993 edition of McCann’s “War and an Irish Town” (p. 43)) a SF councilor in Derry led a successful campaign against the building of a toxic waste incinerator outside the city. Lastly, in general I think that sitting on local government councils proved that they were willing to try non-violent democratic engagement with their Unionist political opponents.
Propaganda
Propaganda is often defined neutrally and just means putting out a party’s message. SF did one newspaper during this time. One thing that might be sort of unusual in such situations was the HUGE number of murals in areas that were at least heavily if not mostly republican. Murals about the IRA, murals about international struggle, murals comparing the experience of nationalists to the experiences of people of color elsewhere, murals about community issues like poverty or eating disorders, murals about other topics. (I am almost certain that at least 90% of those murals were commissioned by SF, SF members or SF supporters)
International Solidarity
SF has done a fairly good job of generating international solidarity with them and with the nationalist community in some countries outside Ireland and Great Britain. But as I have explained elsewhere on this blog, in my opinion they are handicapping this work by making their approach in America much more moderate than progressive. (although significantly different, semi-successful efforts were made to mobilize supporters in Britain)
There is one tool that was used against Apartheid and that is being used against Israel that they have not pushed and that is boycott of, divestment from, and sanctions against the UK (not UN sanctions of course because of the veto the UK has in the Security Council). SF might have been silent about BDS because they knew that they didn’t have enough support globally to make it work. I go into that in a post here, starting with the paragraph that begins with “Was S. Africa much worse?”
One reason I have done this post is to say that members and supporters of the Republican Movement (and others in the Nationalist community in the North, but I have focused on SF because I support them) have done almost everything they could do to get the British out. Which makes it even more infuriating when I think of how little was done by the Left in western Europe and by the Left in America.
Abstention Today
Going back to abstention in Westminster today, exchanging some emails about it with my Dublin friend got me thinking more about SF taking their seats. I wonder if Westminster could be/should be seen by SF as just another battlefield on which to push the peace process, equality and even Irish Unity. In general it could be a forum to raise those issues. Also, it could help build a broad-based movement of British people supporting the Nationalist community if SF were to consistently vote progressively on things affecting British people like austerity, the environment, etc. (there’s a small mystery for me- the Troops Out Movement, which had good relations with SF, seems to have evaporated??????)
I should say that I believe that what we are talking about here are tactics and strategy but not principles (I have supported the 1997 IRA cease-fire since day one). I believe that the PRM usually did a great job of using them during the conflict and has usually been doing a great job using most of them since the conflict died down and basically ended (I would say around 2005) (with the exception of armed struggle and rioting the others are still being used by members and supporters of SF).
IF SF decide to take their seats, I would not criticize them about that (possibly about some of their votes, but with the exception of abortion I doubt even that would happen).
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Babylon 5 Reviews D
Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.
Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it is more significant than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.
**Season 1 Episode 22 “Chrysalis”** See this for a plot summary.
This episode has two items worth mentioning.
1. During negotiations between the Narn and the centauri (the latter used to occupy the former’s space and planets) the Narn announce they are no longer recognizing the treaty between the two of them because it was signed by them while under duress.
In an online debate about N. Ireland among socialists MANY years ago someone said that the British Prime Minister at the time of the partition of Ireland simply out-negotiated the Irish Republican leader Michael Collins, as if that settled it. During the talks, the British threatened “immediate and terrible” war if the Treaty was not accepted. One of the key issues was the boundaries of N. Ireland. Before the Treaty negotiations the Government of Ireland Act had been passed in 1920 (the Treaty was signed in 1921), dividing the island as it has been since then- the Six Counties of N. Ireland and the 26 Counties of Southern Ireland. A key part of the Treaty was a Boundary Commission (BC) to evaluate and if necessary adjust the border.
The Republicans negotiating the Treaty believed that the BC would transfer large parts of NI to the South, and one source I read said that without those areas (including counties Tyrone and Fermanagh) NI might not be economically viable. In general, it probably would have increased the likelihood of the Treaty being a stepping stone to complete independence for all of Ireland.
Why didn’t this happen? There are about seven small reasons and one big one. First, the BC had a representative from the Southern Ireland gov’t, one from the N. Ireland gov’t, and one, the Chair, from the UK gov’t. The idea that the Chair was somehow neutral is ridiculous. It was two to one and then the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council (a part of the British state) decided that the BC could function with only 2 members. Shortly before the BC reported in 1925, the Southern Ireland representative quit in protest of an ostensible plan to take valuable land from the South and give it to the North in exchange for unimportant strips of land in the North (it’s believed that this was a (successful) ruse intended to force the South to confirm the border as it was in order to avoid losing any territory). In the early 1920s in Belfast and to some degree elsewhere in the North there was a high level of violence against the Nationalist community from both the security forces and other unionists. This may have had an effect on the ability of Nationalists to demonstrate their opposition to the Northern statelet and was used to pressure the IRA to cease activity in the Six Counties- activity that might have highlighted, in the border areas, opposition to that state as the BC was meeting (the beginning of the Civil War in the South may have been more responsible for the end of IRA activity in N. Ireland, but according to Michael Farrell on page 61 of his book “Northern Ireland: The Orange State” the pro-Treaty (pro-compromise) Southern gov’t attacked their political opponents because the British pressured them to stop IRA attacks in the North. This was in exchange for stopping the pogroms in Belfast). In general, the North was turned into an armed camp with about 50,000 locally recruited members of the security forces and 16 battalions of the British Army.
The big reason was the set-up of local gov’t in N. Ireland. In 1920, under the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, local gov’t elections were held using proportional representation, something the British put in the law to protect minorities. Out of nearly 80 local gov’t bodies, Nationalists controlled 25, including counties Fermanagh and Tyrone and Derry city. Many of them declared their allegiance to the underground Irish gov’t in Dublin. 14 of these bodies, including Fermanagh and Tyrone, were dissolved and replaced by Unionist-appointed commissions. The N. Ireland law about elections to local gov’t was changed so that PR was done away with and all councilors had to make a declaration of allegiance to the Crown and the gov’t. When the new boundaries were drawn without PR, it was done by a single unionist who invariably accepted unionist submissions (he didn’t do anything with the corporations (i.e. Belfast) or urban councils). The result was that after elections in 1924 (just months before the BC started working) Nationalists controlled only 2 local government bodies. This was partly because in protest of the new boundaries and the required declaration of allegiance many Nationalists boycotted the elections.
As I was refreshing my memory of these facts I decided that here and there you COULD say that the British and/or the unionists, in different negotiations, DID out-negotiate Michael Collins. But that doesn’t change the very serious concerns, then and since then, about the treatment of the Catholic and Nationalist minorities; or the right to national self-determination of the Irish people. Crucially, when the Treaty was signed, the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 said there would be proportional representation, and the boundaries for local gov’t elections had been drawn fairly, and there was no requirement for local councilors to declare allegiance to the Crown and the gov’t. If it had been otherwise, the republican negotiators would have addressed it. As it was, it made sense for them to assume that the BC would transfer about 1/4-1/3 of the Six-County population to the South.
2. At the end, the President of Earth is killed by an explosion on his space ship. As we learn later it’s a bomb and basically a coup involving the Vice President, and in the next 3 seasons there are a lot of episodes about it and I think a few have some elements worth mentioning on this blog.
**Season 2 Episode 1 “Points of Departure”** See this for a plot summary.
There are three brief notes to make about this episode:
1. Commander Sinclair is replaced by Captain Sheridan as the commanding officer of B5.
2. We learn that Minbari society is a caste society and is very segregated.
3. We also learn that the Minbari use torture. In the first episode of the first season it was stated that they are honorable in war (there’s also the fact that during almost the entire series, the Minbari are definitely “good guys”). Those two statements are contradictory and I wouldn’t be surprised if the statement about torture might have been a mistake by the writers.
**Season 2 Episode 2 “Revelations”** See this for a plot summary.
There is one political thing in this episode. The Minbari ambassador goes through some kind of transformation and becomes, as far as her outward appearance is concerned, some kind of hybrid of a human and a Minbari. She says that she did it to bridge the gap between the two races (who had gone to war with each other a decade earlier). I’m torn between calling it a little silly and, on the other hand, saying it takes the themes of multiculturalism and conflict resolution further than normal.
**Season 2 Episode 3 “The Geometry of Shadows”** See this for a plot summary.
There is something slightly political that becomes more so towards the very end. One of the alien races that make up the League of Non-Aligned Worlds, the Drazi, create a new government every five years in non-lethal fighting between those Drazi who wear a purple tie-type thing around their neck and those wearing a green one- all Drazi wear either purple or green. They choose purple or green based on the color of the clothing item that they blindly pull out of a large container- it has nothing to do with caste, class, race, ethnicity, ideology, religion, government policy, etc. In this episode the conflict becomes lethal for the first time ever and at least one of the two sides becomes fairly blood-thirsty. It almost reminds me of two sociology experiments about elementary school or high school students (the one about blue-eyed and brown-eyed kids that actually took place and the one about high-school students and the “Wave” which may have taken place (about fascism)). It also reminds me of the one done at the university level somewhere in California about prison guards.
At one point, as the Executive Officer of B5 is trying to resolve it non-violently, one of the Drazi compares it to the division and conflict on (today’s) Earth that is associated to some degree with flags. As far as armed causes that are symbolized by flags, the vast majority of the time (looking at the past and the very recent past) I would say that most were not worth the bloodshed and destruction. Many were, in one way of another, manifestations of imperialism and/or capitalism (I’m not opposed to those that were fighting AGAINST imperialism and/or capitalism). A good example is World War I. But, at the relatively positive end of the spectrum, the Allied cause in World War II was, overall, a fairly good cause. As I put it in one of my poems, “although the Allied leaders are not consistent/defeating the fascist states is important.” In general I’m very anti-war but I am not a pacifist.
As far as the display of flags, I’m between fairly and very okay with that most of the time. It’s strongly felt by most of the Irish population that the six counties of N. Ireland are part of Ireland in a fairly political or national way, not just in the sense that they’re part of the same island. I have a problem with the British flag being flown there and I wouldn’t hold it against the nationalist population if they flew the Irish flag in their areas all the time. In the 8th note for the poem here, I talk a little about the US flag. I am fine with the display of (for example) the Mexican flag by immigrants and Mexican-Americans in the US.
Monday, May 22, 2017
Legalize Everyone!! Two new poems
These are two of my poems. For more on how I "write" them, see this. The rest of my poems can be found by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom of this post. There's about seven pages so click on "older posts" at the bottom of the first lyrics page.
I came up with the title for this post since it captured the spirit of the second poem and kind of captured the spirit of both combined. A few years ago when researching some comments I wanted to make about the need for Sinn Fein to support UNIVERSAL immigration and immigrant rights (in AMERICA) instead of focusing exclusively on Irish-America, I found a column about the differences between being undocumented and Irish on one hand and being undocumented and (for example) Mexican on the other. At the beginning the columnist points out that in 2007 Hilary Clinton held up a t-shirt that said "Legalize the Irish" at a rally. I have never heard of her holding up a t-shirt saying "Legalize the Mexicans" and I doubt she ever will do that.
Anyway, here are the two poems.
“Irish Unity” based on “European Unity” by Brutal Attack, original lyrics are here.
1. It’s about provisional republicans in the 1980s and I guess some of the 1990s (I kind of have a problem with writing poems that are about Sinn Fein- to a very large degree I haven’t done that. In this case at least one line (the last of the first verse) pretty much required me to make it PARTLY about SF (and although I like to think that since the 90s SF has continued to lean towards the left, this is not about TODAY’S SF). It’s about the various members and supporters of the Provisional republican movement.
2. The last line of he 1st verse is referring to the fact that they were using armed struggle, elections, local government battles, propaganda, rioting, and to a moderate or large degree, mass struggle. Lastly they also did a fair amount of work generating support globally but for various reasons, this didn’t reach it’s potential, largely through no fault of SF’s- I write more about that in the last 2/3 of a post here.
3. The pride referred to in the chorus is, usually, very different from white pride. And It might be a minority of nationalists in the North who would talk about Irish pride, but at least some of them do.
4. The BA is the British Army, the RUC were the police until 2001.
5. I have a theory about one aspect of resolving the conflict there. Although I would gladly support uniting Ireland ASAP instead of waiting for a voting majority there to endorse that, winning Protestants over to the republican and/or nationalist causes (uniting Ireland and/or creating equality in the North) seems very important to me. I think if more of the Protestant community had a better understanding of what Catholics went through while under British rule in Ireland (in recent decades, for example- INNOCENT civilians being shot by police or soldiers who go unpunished, etc.) and if they knew that often republicans and nationalists were smeared by British and Unionist elements, they would be more open-minded about what Catholics say regarding the need for a United Ireland. On a related note, if the monarchy were opened up to Catholics (they recently reformed it a bit and now allow SPOUSES of Catholics to become King or Queen, but it’s still closed to actual Catholics) I think that might have a similar effect on Protestants in the North. And the British are the ones best positioned to educate the Protestants of N. Ireland and to further reform the monarchy. Lastly, I think the British will move on those two things the more pressure is put on them by the rest of the world, especially the US and Western Europe. That last line in the poem means that via the British (and to some degree directly), supporters of justice and freedom in N. Ireland can educate the Protestants and as that process advances, more and more Protestants will be more open to being educated directly by Northern Catholics.
(UPDATE 4/22/18 I just remembered that in the 1990 movie "Hidden Agenda" it's asserted that the British produced A LOT of black propaganda (often or always attributed to republican sources) in it's war with the IRA; Although my memory is a little fuzzy, I have read a fair amount about that from better sources than a semi-fictional movie, and I am certain it happened, probably on a large scale; it's likely at least some of that was aimed at the opinions of unionists and if so, some honesty from the British about this stuff could help and demanding it would be justified) (UPDATE 12/12/18 Even if the black propaganda was aimed at British public opinion, that could have indirectly affected the thinking of many unionists in N. Ireland- I'm sure a lot of unionists had friends and relatives in Britain who expressed support for the unionist position and encouraged their friends and relatives in NI to stick with it)
**6. 73% of this version is me, 27% is the original.
7. I give this poem 5 stars out of 5.
8. Besides the line about neanderthals, there’s also the fact that Brutal Attack were British and supported the unionist and British causes in the North of Ireland.
9. UPDATE 5/25/17 I removed the word "broad" from the fourth line of the poem, I think it may have implied that this poem is about what I call the "republican family," including the IRSP, etc.
10. UPDATE 7/3//17 The third line of the poem- that line could seem a little off if you don't know what i'm thinking- they went on the offensive at some point in the early 1970s and "now" is something like 1972-1994/97 (I'm not sure how to write it better in the context of a poem) so they'd been on the offensive for a while, but the 4th line is 1982-1994/7.
Our movement has been put on the road to revolution
We fight against wealth and for its redistribution
We started with defending our areas, now we’re on the offensive
The republican struggle is strategically comprehensive
Chorus
Irish unity,
Socialism, pride and dignity
Working-class unity,
Protestants and Catholics- one proletarian community
Our grandparents fought for our freedom you see,
But they were successful only to a moderate degree
Ireland was partitioned at the barrel of a gun
By British imperialists and the Unionist scum.
So listen Irish people, listen very carefully,
We must continue to fight against the BA and the RUC
organized we'll win, come hear our patriotic call,
And we’re anti-fascist, they’re just a bunch of neanderthals
It wont be easy it'll be a long hard task,
With the pen, the ballot, and the ski-mask
But we'll pull through, cos truth wins in the end,
And our allies will help the Protestants comprehend
**************
“No Human Being is Illegal” based on “Muslims Out” by Kill, Baby, Kill original lyrics are here.
1. This is about America and kind of specifically the Trump administration.
2. As for the 1st line of the second verse, I don’t think that’s 100% true, but so very close to it that I typed that line like that (I think the only significant exception is that a small minority of the Muslim population practice Female Genital Mutilation and that is against the law here (UPDATE 5/26/17 apparently it's not just a minority of muslims, it's also found among some animists in Africa). That line is also meant to suggest that the danger of Sharia is vastly exaggerated by many people- as horrible as it is, it is nowhere near being implemented here and some expressions of concern about it can potentially fuel anti-Muslim bigotry.
3. To abominate means to find something repugnant.
**4. 80% of this version is me, and 20% is the original.
5. I give this poem 3 stars out of five.
Refugees and immigrants, they come over here.
They were unemployed and/or living in fear.
Raising families, living and enriching America are their only goals.
They deserve our standard of living, but nativism is out of control.
chorus
Bigots out! Bigots out!
Hear the people scream, hear the people shout.
Republicans out! Republicans out!
We’ll defeat you- there won’t be any doubt
Their religions they practice in line with our laws
And they’re guaranteed freedom of, in the first amendment clause
Mosques are opening in many of our cities and towns
ignorant right-wing scum oppose them on bigoted grounds
They aren’t responsible for job losses, that’s the bourgeoisie
And they aren’t voting illegally, they leave that to the GOP
When I think of what Trump’s done so far it makes me abominate
He’s turning America into a fascist state!
I came up with the title for this post since it captured the spirit of the second poem and kind of captured the spirit of both combined. A few years ago when researching some comments I wanted to make about the need for Sinn Fein to support UNIVERSAL immigration and immigrant rights (in AMERICA) instead of focusing exclusively on Irish-America, I found a column about the differences between being undocumented and Irish on one hand and being undocumented and (for example) Mexican on the other. At the beginning the columnist points out that in 2007 Hilary Clinton held up a t-shirt that said "Legalize the Irish" at a rally. I have never heard of her holding up a t-shirt saying "Legalize the Mexicans" and I doubt she ever will do that.
Anyway, here are the two poems.
“Irish Unity” based on “European Unity” by Brutal Attack, original lyrics are here.
1. It’s about provisional republicans in the 1980s and I guess some of the 1990s (I kind of have a problem with writing poems that are about Sinn Fein- to a very large degree I haven’t done that. In this case at least one line (the last of the first verse) pretty much required me to make it PARTLY about SF (and although I like to think that since the 90s SF has continued to lean towards the left, this is not about TODAY’S SF). It’s about the various members and supporters of the Provisional republican movement.
2. The last line of he 1st verse is referring to the fact that they were using armed struggle, elections, local government battles, propaganda, rioting, and to a moderate or large degree, mass struggle. Lastly they also did a fair amount of work generating support globally but for various reasons, this didn’t reach it’s potential, largely through no fault of SF’s- I write more about that in the last 2/3 of a post here.
3. The pride referred to in the chorus is, usually, very different from white pride. And It might be a minority of nationalists in the North who would talk about Irish pride, but at least some of them do.
4. The BA is the British Army, the RUC were the police until 2001.
5. I have a theory about one aspect of resolving the conflict there. Although I would gladly support uniting Ireland ASAP instead of waiting for a voting majority there to endorse that, winning Protestants over to the republican and/or nationalist causes (uniting Ireland and/or creating equality in the North) seems very important to me. I think if more of the Protestant community had a better understanding of what Catholics went through while under British rule in Ireland (in recent decades, for example- INNOCENT civilians being shot by police or soldiers who go unpunished, etc.) and if they knew that often republicans and nationalists were smeared by British and Unionist elements, they would be more open-minded about what Catholics say regarding the need for a United Ireland. On a related note, if the monarchy were opened up to Catholics (they recently reformed it a bit and now allow SPOUSES of Catholics to become King or Queen, but it’s still closed to actual Catholics) I think that might have a similar effect on Protestants in the North. And the British are the ones best positioned to educate the Protestants of N. Ireland and to further reform the monarchy. Lastly, I think the British will move on those two things the more pressure is put on them by the rest of the world, especially the US and Western Europe. That last line in the poem means that via the British (and to some degree directly), supporters of justice and freedom in N. Ireland can educate the Protestants and as that process advances, more and more Protestants will be more open to being educated directly by Northern Catholics.
(UPDATE 4/22/18 I just remembered that in the 1990 movie "Hidden Agenda" it's asserted that the British produced A LOT of black propaganda (often or always attributed to republican sources) in it's war with the IRA; Although my memory is a little fuzzy, I have read a fair amount about that from better sources than a semi-fictional movie, and I am certain it happened, probably on a large scale; it's likely at least some of that was aimed at the opinions of unionists and if so, some honesty from the British about this stuff could help and demanding it would be justified) (UPDATE 12/12/18 Even if the black propaganda was aimed at British public opinion, that could have indirectly affected the thinking of many unionists in N. Ireland- I'm sure a lot of unionists had friends and relatives in Britain who expressed support for the unionist position and encouraged their friends and relatives in NI to stick with it)
**6. 73% of this version is me, 27% is the original.
7. I give this poem 5 stars out of 5.
8. Besides the line about neanderthals, there’s also the fact that Brutal Attack were British and supported the unionist and British causes in the North of Ireland.
9. UPDATE 5/25/17 I removed the word "broad" from the fourth line of the poem, I think it may have implied that this poem is about what I call the "republican family," including the IRSP, etc.
10. UPDATE 7/3//17 The third line of the poem- that line could seem a little off if you don't know what i'm thinking- they went on the offensive at some point in the early 1970s and "now" is something like 1972-1994/97 (I'm not sure how to write it better in the context of a poem) so they'd been on the offensive for a while, but the 4th line is 1982-1994/7.
Our movement has been put on the road to revolution
We fight against wealth and for its redistribution
We started with defending our areas, now we’re on the offensive
The republican struggle is strategically comprehensive
Chorus
Irish unity,
Socialism, pride and dignity
Working-class unity,
Protestants and Catholics- one proletarian community
Our grandparents fought for our freedom you see,
But they were successful only to a moderate degree
Ireland was partitioned at the barrel of a gun
By British imperialists and the Unionist scum.
So listen Irish people, listen very carefully,
We must continue to fight against the BA and the RUC
organized we'll win, come hear our patriotic call,
And we’re anti-fascist, they’re just a bunch of neanderthals
It wont be easy it'll be a long hard task,
With the pen, the ballot, and the ski-mask
But we'll pull through, cos truth wins in the end,
And our allies will help the Protestants comprehend
**************
“No Human Being is Illegal” based on “Muslims Out” by Kill, Baby, Kill original lyrics are here.
1. This is about America and kind of specifically the Trump administration.
2. As for the 1st line of the second verse, I don’t think that’s 100% true, but so very close to it that I typed that line like that (I think the only significant exception is that a small minority of the Muslim population practice Female Genital Mutilation and that is against the law here (UPDATE 5/26/17 apparently it's not just a minority of muslims, it's also found among some animists in Africa). That line is also meant to suggest that the danger of Sharia is vastly exaggerated by many people- as horrible as it is, it is nowhere near being implemented here and some expressions of concern about it can potentially fuel anti-Muslim bigotry.
3. To abominate means to find something repugnant.
**4. 80% of this version is me, and 20% is the original.
5. I give this poem 3 stars out of five.
Refugees and immigrants, they come over here.
They were unemployed and/or living in fear.
Raising families, living and enriching America are their only goals.
They deserve our standard of living, but nativism is out of control.
chorus
Bigots out! Bigots out!
Hear the people scream, hear the people shout.
Republicans out! Republicans out!
We’ll defeat you- there won’t be any doubt
Their religions they practice in line with our laws
And they’re guaranteed freedom of, in the first amendment clause
Mosques are opening in many of our cities and towns
ignorant right-wing scum oppose them on bigoted grounds
They aren’t responsible for job losses, that’s the bourgeoisie
And they aren’t voting illegally, they leave that to the GOP
When I think of what Trump’s done so far it makes me abominate
He’s turning America into a fascist state!
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
"The Party of Lincoln"
I first read about Trump's thoughts on the Civil War in an article on the BBC News site. I found another article there about it, where historians are asked to respond to what Trump said. In an analysis piece for the Washington Post, the author of that piece wrote: "Update: Trump clarified Monday night that he didn't actually think Jackson was alive during the Civil War, but he stood by his larger contention that Jackson somehow would have prevented it." That doesn't change anything at all about how what he said was offensive, as I'll explain below.
I need to point out a couple things that might not have gotten the huge amount of attention they should get- or at the very least, I want to say them too (the more the merrier). It's very important that the racism of what he said. gets exposed. The third item below seems to have gotten almost no attention at all.
1) He thought there should have been some negotiated resolution of the conflict around slavery, which, even though he hasn't said this- would have meant slavery continuing in some form, some where in the US for some number of years.
2) Andrew Jackson was a slave owner and a passionate opponent of abolitionists. If he were the one negotiating with the South, I guarantee the compromise would have meant slavery continuing with (at the most), VERY minor (if any) changes in it's treatment of slaves, and/or it's geographic scope, and/or and it's life-span. (
3) We now have another good response when members of the GOP say that their party is the party of Lincoln! : )
Tom
UPDATE 4/23/20 Bearing in mind that criminal "justice" reform is a issue of racism, see this.
I need to point out a couple things that might not have gotten the huge amount of attention they should get- or at the very least, I want to say them too (the more the merrier). It's very important that the racism of what he said. gets exposed. The third item below seems to have gotten almost no attention at all.
1) He thought there should have been some negotiated resolution of the conflict around slavery, which, even though he hasn't said this- would have meant slavery continuing in some form, some where in the US for some number of years.
2) Andrew Jackson was a slave owner and a passionate opponent of abolitionists. If he were the one negotiating with the South, I guarantee the compromise would have meant slavery continuing with (at the most), VERY minor (if any) changes in it's treatment of slaves, and/or it's geographic scope, and/or and it's life-span. (
3) We now have another good response when members of the GOP say that their party is the party of Lincoln! : )
Tom
UPDATE 4/23/20 Bearing in mind that criminal "justice" reform is a issue of racism, see this.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Tearing Down the Swastikas- A New Poem!
I almost never publish just one poem at a time, but this might be my very best poem and I want to publish it, so here it is. For an explanation of how I write these poems see this. The rest of my poems can be found by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom of this post. There's about seven pages so click on "older posts" at the bottom of the first lyrics page.
“Tearing Down the Swastikas,” based on “Tearing Down Red Flags” (or something like that) by Razor’s Edge. Original lyrics are here.
1. It’s set roughly during the last 5 or so months of the war in Europe.
2. I get the impression that the plotters of the 1944 attempted coup by part of the German military were far from ideal. They were happy to fight the Soviets and wanted an alliance with the West in doing that. And the coup’s leader was not as politically attractive as they make him look in the Tom Cruise movie, but I imagine he and the others would have called off the Final Solution if they had succeeded.
3. Himmler was head of the SS. UPDATE 4/22/18 I changed Himmler to Eichmann. although Himmler was head of the SS, I have gotten the impression that he didn't have much to do with the Final Solution, so it now refers to Adolf Eichman, who was the main person responsible for the Final Solution.
4. Davis was Jefferson Davis, head of the Confederacy during the American Civil War.
5. I don’t believe in Hell, but the way I mention it here I think creatively makes a good point- if there IS a hell, I’m sure people like Hitler and Davis are there.
6. It’s a little more about the Western Allies than it is about the Soviets (that is, the 4th line of the 1st verse isn’t about the Soviets). I guess that line also is just about the campaign inside Germany (and maybe Italy and maybe some of the western countries that briefly had fascist puppet regimes and were liberated by the British and Americans (and maybe towards the very end, by the French)).
7. Everything except 1st person statements is about the Nazis.
8. The half a line about the red, white, and blue (the American flag). It exaggerates how patriotic I am (in another poem (Oh, No, Here Comes a Republican) I attacked about 5-20% of the US population partly in connection with them displaying the flag (I tried coming up with something better that rhymed, but that line was the best I could come up with)). In general I have mixed feelings about the flag. I am fairly proud of the role that the US played in the defeat of Nazi Germany (in another poem I write: "And although the Allied leaders are not consistent/Defeating the fascist states is important.”). In this poem I am saying something nice about the flag in connection with the defeat of Nazi Germany, not in general.
9. The line about wankers. Obviously the US wasn’t tons better than Nazi Germany when it came to gay people, but there was some difference. There was a bigger difference when it came people of color but still not a huge difference, and I’d probably say there was an almost huge difference when it came to Jewish people.
**10. 57% of this version is me, and 43% is the original.
11. I give this poem 5 stars out of 5.
UPDATE 5/27/17 I added "attempted" to the second line of the 3rd verse.
UPDATE 5/21/18 I think that "breaking" is rarely defined the way I'm using it without adding the word "down," but I think you know what I mean.
UPDATE 5/27/17 I added "attempted" to the second line of the 3rd verse.
UPDATE 5/21/18 I think that "breaking" is rarely defined the way I'm using it without adding the word "down," but I think you know what I mean.
You fly your swastika flags, your symbols of war-making.
Don't you f*cking realize, that Nazism is breaking
We're tearing down swastikas, all the way to Berlin.
In their place the transformation to democracy will begin
(Chorus)
We're tearing down the swastikas- we'll banish Europe's shame.
We're tearing down the swastikas - we’re kicking ass and taking names
We're tearing down the swastikas - we're never giving in.
We're tearing down the swastikas - we're gonna f*cking win.
German soldiers still fighting back, they haven't learned at all.
Don't they f*cking realize, it’s an anti-fascist free-for-all
They're just a bunch of wankers, who hate jews, blacks and gays
Well here's some headlines for you, "your defeat is on it's way".
(Chorus)
You fly your red, white and black, we fly the red white and blue
It’s too bad Hitler survived the 1944 attempted coup
We're tearing down the swastikas, and we'll tear Eichmann up as well.
And all the Nazis can join Davis in the bigot’s fiery hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)