Sfdebris.net

http://sfdebris.com/videos/babylon5/b5s3e10.php

Been waiting for a while for this review of this episode, a definite highlight of the series.

Too right it is. From Sheridan's declaration of independence to Hiroshi's sacrifice ... this episode is just amazing. This is why I love Babylon 5 even above Star Trek. This whole arc is just amazing to me. B5 handles politics in sci-fi better than just about any other program I've seen. Or maybe I'm just a sucker for badass B5 speeches. Either or.

Without wanting to open up this thread to debates over the civil war and such (especially given the political climate), I would like to flesh out a bit of the historical context to Frederick Douglass' speech on the Constitution that Chuck quoted. It wasn't exactly an endorsement of the idea that one should never ever break with a thoroughly corrupt institution and only work for change on the inside. It was rather part of the on-going debate going on within the Abolitionist movement before the Civil War.

There was a wing of the anti-slavery movement before the Civil War led by William Lloyd Garrison that supported secession by the non-slave owning free states from the Union. This represented his views on "moral suasion," that abolitionists should not run for office or pursue a political course through the U.S. government since the Constitution endorsed slavery. His advocacy of separation of free and slave states was the ultimate expression of this stance.

Obviously, having the states where slavery was already illegal separate from Union would do nothing to end slavery in the rest of the country. Hence the "longboat" analogy Douglass offered. The Garrisonian argument basically seemed to boil down to that 'even if something bad is going on, at least we won't be culpable for it or playing a role in causing it.' That's why Douglass sharply opposed Garrison and pointed out all the clauses of the Constitution that seemed to cut against the idea of it being a uniformly pro-slavery document.

But I don't think this particular historical example can be extrapolated into a general endorsement of the idea that one should struggle on the inside of an corrupted institution and not openly break with it. There's a reason why the phrase about a "good man in service to a bad cause" exists. One can lament the tragedy of it, but that doesn't change the reality that by sticking with President Clark, all those officers helped him maintain his rule and allowed him to go on to massacre thousands of civilians. And as we'll eventually see, were it not for Sheridan and the others breaking away, Clark would never have been toppled. It wasn't Lochley or Dr. Franklin's dad who were responsible for that. It was Sheridan.

As one more historical footnote, it was Union General Phillip Sheridan's cavalry which is generally credited with pursing General Lee's forces and ultimately forcing his surrender at Appomattox and ending the Civil War. Coincidence? Hmmm....

Great post and I agree, B5 was always way more "adult" than Trek. Yes I seem to recall JMS saying that Phillip Henry Sheridan is, in fact, John Sheridan's ancestor. Nice history less there, thanks. I also wanted to comment on Douglass' words but was afraid of stepping on a political landmine in this forum.

MadAmosMalone wrote:Great post and I agree, B5 was always way more "adult" than Trek. Yes I seem to recall JMS saying that Phillip Henry Sheridan is, in fact, John Sheridan's ancestor. Nice history less there, thanks. I also wanted to comment on Douglass' words but was afraid of stepping on a political landmine in this forum.

Yeah, you're probably smarter than I am for that. But I'm a history major and I can't help sinking my teeth into things when I feel like there's more to add or flesh out. I actually opened a post waaaay back on "The Coming of Shadows" because I thought Chuck was a bit too generous in his depiction of Hapsburg Archduke Franz Ferdinand's support of trialism in Austria-Hungary.

If there's a difference between B5 and Trek, it's that Trek is a bit more optimistic about our future and what new technology can wrought. You can also see that in how Trek has humanity as the homeworld, the center, of the Federation, which is the largest and most powerful state Star Trek (until we run up against the Borg and Dominion).

Babylon 5 is a bit more an extension of the world we know, with the Earth Alliance President often having woo businessmen, senators and generals to get what they want. Corporations call a lot of the shots. Even Earth is just a mid-sized power, stronger than some but weaker than others, which has its benefits in that Earth can't just throw its weight around and always get what it wants. If it could Babylon 5 would have no purpose in existing. I guess that's more realistic, but does it say more about sci-fi, or us, that we expect our future to be more-or-less more of the same?

Trinary wrote:If there's a difference between B5 and Trek, it's that Trek is a bit more optimistic about our future and what new technology can wrought. You can also see that in how Trek has humanity as the homeworld, the center, of the Federation, which is the largest and most powerful state Star Trek (until we run up against the Borg and Dominion).

Babylon 5 is a bit more an extension of the world we know, with the Earth Alliance President often having woo businessmen, senators and generals to get what they want. Corporations call a lot of the shots. Even Earth is just a mid-sized power, stronger than some but weaker than others, which has its benefits in that Earth can't just throw its weight around and always get what it wants. If it could Babylon 5 would have no purpose in existing. I guess that's more realistic, but does it say more about sci-fi, or us, that we expect our future to be more-or-less more of the same?

I would still say B5 is fairly optimistic just not to the extent of Star Trek. Humanity has become united (at least on a planetary level) and it seems like sexism and racism are dead though if anything would end racism quickly it would be encountering aliens, hard to get that worked up over someones skin color when you learn you're sharing the universe with beings that make such minor differences seem laughable. Richard Biggs really enjoyed playing Dr.Franklin in part because it was the only part he ever played where his race never mattered.

I always found Lochley's little speech to Garibaldi in defense of her actions (or more accurately non actions) during the war to be fairly weak (and the applause she gets confusing unless there had been a lot of personnel turnover since Earth took the station back) and the lack of rebuttal a bit disappointing. I almost wonder if JMS was just trying to move past it as fast as possible while still acknowledging it cause he was having a hard time coming up with a good argument that could stand up to opposition. The military should enforce policy not make it is a very good point.. in the abstract but in this particular situation is pretty hollow in the face of Clark turning the government into a dictatorship and using the military to indiscriminately attack civilians opposed to him. Or might be oppose to him... or just in the general region of opposition.

CareerKnight wrote:

Trinary wrote:If there's a difference between B5 and Trek, it's that Trek is a bit more optimistic about our future and what new technology can wrought. You can also see that in how Trek has humanity as the homeworld, the center, of the Federation, which is the largest and most powerful state Star Trek (until we run up against the Borg and Dominion).

Babylon 5 is a bit more an extension of the world we know, with the Earth Alliance President often having woo businessmen, senators and generals to get what they want. Corporations call a lot of the shots. Even Earth is just a mid-sized power, stronger than some but weaker than others, which has its benefits in that Earth can't just throw its weight around and always get what it wants. If it could Babylon 5 would have no purpose in existing. I guess that's more realistic, but does it say more about sci-fi, or us, that we expect our future to be more-or-less more of the same?

I would still say B5 is fairly optimistic just not to the extent of Star Trek. Humanity has become united (at least on a planetary level) and it seems like sexism and racism are dead though if anything would end racism quickly it would be encountering aliens, hard to get that worked up over someones skin color when you learn you're sharing the universe with beings that make such minor differences seem laughable. Richard Biggs really enjoyed playing Dr.Franklin in part because it was the only part he ever played where his race never mattered.

I always found Lochley's little speech to Garibaldi in defense of her actions (or more accurately non actions) during the war to be fairly weak (and the applause she gets confusing unless there had been a lot of personnel turnover since Earth took the station back) and the lack of rebuttal a bit disappointing. I almost wonder if JMS was just trying to move past it as fast as possible while still acknowledging it cause he was having a hard time coming up with a good argument that could stand up to opposition. The military should enforce policy not make it is a very good point.. in the abstract but in this particular situation is pretty hollow in the face of Clark turning the government into a dictatorship and using the military to indiscriminately attack civilians opposed to him. Or might be oppose to him... or just in the general region of opposition.

Thanks for sharing that bit about Biggs. I hadn't realized it, but you're right. It never did come into play. Then again, I don't recall it ever being an issue with Geordi LaForge either. While the B5 Earth made some advances, I wouldn't be surprised if there was still bigoted hold-overs. Or at least, I could see racists and sexists continuing to exist in B5 more than I could see them in the later Star Trek series.

I don't recall Lochley's speech (I haven't rewatched in a while). From what I've recall hearing, it wasn't a certainty that B5 would get a fifth season, so JMS had to wrap up all the big plots in Season 4 ... then when they actually GOT a Season 5 there wasn't much else to do, which is why it struggled.

I guess it's interesting from a story perspective to have a captain who served on the other side of that conflict as it brings home the point that just because Sheridan won, that doesn't mean all the people on the other side were handed their walking papers. They're still around and it's going to be awkward working with people you were shooting at a little while ago. That's kinda interesting, though it doesn't do much to justify, in the concrete, the position she took. Also, she was Sheridan's ex-wife. It makes you wonder why Clark didn't have her removed, given his levels of paranoia. What do you think she had to do to prove that she wasn't one of Sheridan's backers?

Food for thought.

Trinary wrote:Yeah, you're probably smarter than I am for that.

My wife is going to laugh so hard when she reads that.

Trinary wrote:But I'm a history major and I can't help sinking my teeth into things when I feel like there's more to add or flesh out.

And that is a good thing. I dabble in history some so, for me, it's a real treat to hear from someone who knows more about the subject. It's good to get a historical context to science fiction. Too often, modern sci-fi tries too hard to be "topical" and just misses the chance to think things through from a broader perspective.

Trinary wrote:If there's a difference between B5 and Trek, it's that Trek is a bit more optimistic about our future and what new technology can wrought. You can also see that in how Trek has humanity as the homeworld, the center, of the Federation, which is the largest and most powerful state Star Trek (until we run up against the Borg and Dominion).

Babylon 5 is a bit more an extension of the world we know, with the Earth Alliance President often having woo businessmen, senators and generals to get what they want. Corporations call a lot of the shots. Even Earth is just a mid-sized power, stronger than some but weaker than others, which has its benefits in that Earth can't just throw its weight around and always get what it wants. If it could Babylon 5 would have no purpose in existing. I guess that's more realistic, but does it say more about sci-fi, or us, that we expect our future to be more-or-less more of the same?

While I see where you're coming from here, I tend to agree with CareerKnight in that B5 is also optimistic in a different way. It just seems that that optimism is mediated with a healthy dose of realism. I'm not sure which 23rd Century I would rather live in, Trek's or B5's but I think either is a more than hopeful outcome to the times we're living in now.

Trinary wrote: Food for thought.

And the main reason that I just shelled out for another years for this forum. Not to derail it, but the discussions going on of late have been great explorations of the ideas the shows (and I hope the videos) bring up and given a full exploration. I don't often post (I barely have time for email) but I try to poke my head in once in a while to see, and these kinds of things give me a shot in the arm. I always try to err on the side of the audience being intelligent, and I've yet to be disappointed! So please, keep dishing out the food!

I think Clark's government wanted to view Sheridan as a tragic figure. Someone who was corrupted. When he was captured they desperately wanted to turn him. Keeping his ex-wife around especially since she was in uniform was assigned to show that I'm not the bad guy I just want what's best for everyone. Make a show of keeping her in place and then shuffle her off to the side where she can't do anything.

This is definitely one of the best episodes. It's tragedy but one you can understand. I know it wasn't touch on in the review but I really did enjoy the battle scene. It was one of those for every action seem to matter. Definitely one of the better sci-fi battles I've seen either in movies or television.

It would have been interesting to see people trying to work within the system to change things on the other side. It's not something you see very often. A pity there was not room for it.

I wonder if I keeping the Shadows in the shadows (I apologize for that turn of phrase) did more to help Clark? I meet there was an alien conspiracy just president Clark was in on the conspiracy.

This reminds me of the Snowden case and how I just can't get over how many service members view him as a traitor, white still admitting that the actions he exposed were in fact illegal and that there should be something done about it. They insist he should have somehow been done through the proper chain of command, but since those immediately above his head were in on it, at best he would have been fired and constrained by a NDA that would see him thrown in jail. I mean, witness the actions of the British government against their media when it came to the information that was released - they literally threatened to come tromping in there to take all of the paper's computers to prevent any further information being released. So I can even agree with him running, as I doubt he'd have gotten a fair trail that way. Indeed he still might not. But the parallel still remains there that a large number of service members still view him as a traitor in spite of the wrong he saw exposed, and some of them even want to see him executed over it, which must be the same kind of mentality driving the EA service members who are attacking their own for taking a moral stand against what they see as illegal actions by their government. And this from a country that has its armed forces swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic - apparently it never occurred to them that their own government might be one of those enemies.