From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #323 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/323 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blakes7-d Digest Volume 99 : Issue 323 Today's Topics: [B7L] Digest headers [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #322 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #322 Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture [B7L] Re: Cally [B7L] Star One and after... (was: Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #320) Re: [B7L] the Federation Re: [B7L] Star One and after... (was: Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #320) Re: [B7L] Re: Cally Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Re: [B7L] Re: Cally Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Re: [B7L] the Federation Re: [B7L] Cally-related. Re: [B7L] the Federation Re: [B7L] Cally-related. [B7L] Paul Darrow at Cult TV [B7L] Reserved materials Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:55:53 +0000 From: Steve Rogerson To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Digest headers Message-ID: <38334088.91FE0B20@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Could fellow digesters responding to mails please change the header so it reflects the mail they are responding to rather than saying, for example, "Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #321"? I know we all, me included, do it accidentally occassionally, but it seems to be coming the norm for some posters and it does make it hard to skim digests for the threads you are following at the time. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson "In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like ponies" The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:38:48 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #322 Message-ID: <383382D8.2143@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Massacring whole populations. Are you sure they (Victorians) would not have > done it if there were not other empires to keep them in check ? Threatening > populations with death by far superior weaponry ? Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Australian aborigines nearly wiped out? I thought I read somewhere that 90% of their population was destroyed. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:43:13 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #322 Message-ID: <383383E1.1A20@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Ob B7 ref.: Which of our heroes would actually read the materials the > professors put on reserve? > Blake. Avon, if he liked the subject. Gan would, I feel sure. He'd trust the teacher's recommendation, and want to improve himself. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:42:52 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Message-ID: <19991117.234254.9926.0.Rilliara@juno.com> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:07:55 -0000 "Neil Faulkner" writes: >Rob wrote: >>I've heard an awful lot of people speculate on what our "natural" >behaviour >>is, was, or should be. But I've never heard anyone even attempt to >define >>exactly what they mean by "natural". To me, it usually sounds like >"the >way >>*I* think people should be". > Since I think I'm the person who introduced the "natural" theme, I feel like I'd better respond. There are some things that may come fairly naturally to humans and our cultures. There are other things, particular stresses in modern society being the best known, which really weren't much of an issue till recently. Of course, this leads to the question of whether we're equipped to cope with the evironment we've created. I"M NOT DEALING WITH THAT QUESTION! I was only pointing out that, even in borderline survival situations, dystopias weren't common. Now, while I don't want to go to the other extreme, trying to make modern culture sound like the closest thing to utopia, let me point out some of the problems these "natural" cultures often had. Nomadic tribes: infanticide (usually unwanted females) was common in many of these. While war usually had lower mortality rates, some seem to have deliberately used them to get rid of social pariahs. Diet was more varied than that of farming communities but less reliable, effecting mortality rates, etc. Settled groups: Disease. Lack of knowledge combined with lack of ability to create a decent sewer system led to many deaths. Diseases we might expect to survive even without modern medicine exacted heavy tolls due to malnutrition. Another effect of malnutrition: retardation. There's a reason fools were so often associated with the lower classes other than education opportunities. Malnutrition can cause retardation, along with physical problems, and they were the most vulnerable population group. Wars tended to be bloodier, although civilian populations were actually not as devastated as they are in modern times in most cases, despite far too many gruesome events recorded in history. In both these groups, a more stable and homogenous society also led to heavier pressure on individuals to conform, with sometimes terrible consequences for those who wouldn't or couldn't. The murder rate during the middle ages, I should mention, was well above that of New York's. A high number of these deaths were the result of vendetta killings--i.e., semi-sanctioned murder. Outlaws were also a problem. A man of this period, in praising the _safeness_ of one region said, if you traveled with a group of 60 armed men, you could sleep as safe as if you were in your own home. Not enough? I knew a woman who worked as a nurse in a third world country and was sometimes driven nuts by the fatalism of the culture. We're talking an area where child mortality was horrible--comparable to the middle ages. The people had a remarkable ability to cope with this and other hardships without coming unglued (like I might) but it was partly because of their fatalism. The nurse I knew told me about a child she treated who died and the mother said it was God's will. This nurse was a devout woman (kind of how she wound up being a nurse in a third world country) but she really hit the roof when she told me about this. She wanted to shout, "It wasn't God's will! If you'd brought this child in sooner instead of using useless home remedies for days, he'd still be alive!" Fatalism was a coping skill, an acceptance of how much was literally beyond their control. But it worked against them when circumstances changed and things could be in their control. >>I have to admit, given the choice of (1) writing my own personal >moral >code, >>based on my life's experiences and the teachings of the people I >respect >>most, and (2) having my morals dictated to me by some dogmatic tract, >I >>would choose the former over the latter. Up to a point, Granted, despite the way I may sometimes carry on, I'm only an amateur anthropologist, if that. However, it's amazing how much we accept without thinking that we never realize we accept without thinking. Like what's funny. Anyone who likes B7 should have an appreciation of irony and sarcasm. Some cultures don't (I always thought Aurons were one such culture, it would explain so much). You'd be surprised how much you accept without question. Which brings us back to the issue of "natural" man. The "unspoiled" and "noble savage" idea in fiction usually presents someone who has grown to be some sort of paragon precisely because they didn't have corrupt, "unnatural" society messing them up. Skipping the evidence that flies in the face of this, ever notice how nature boy, in these stories, may have trouble adjusting to the corrupt elements of society but _never_ to the underlying premises? Look at Tarzan. Despite real ape behavior, does he ever question the value of monogamy, _not_ an ape value? Does he ever try to fight other guys for their mates? What about the value he puts on _romantic_ love? How about his awareness of social obligations to complete strangers (you know, saving the lives of every Tom, Dick, and Harry to come through the jungle)? How about picking the "right" side in any local wars according to either general European values or British national interests? And never violating certain ideas of fairness in a fight? For crying outloud, he never tries to groom Jane's hair and eat the lice! This is because the author saw these as "natural" virtues, ones that might be not be lived up to but which were an inevitable part of the moral code (especially the lice). You might say you question certain values--but there are certain core ones you won't think to question, the ones you judge the others by. Boy, I'm long winded. Sorry about that. And too abstract. Hmm, I'd better make a B7 connection, quick. OK, here goes. When Dayna first appeared, she was an obvious "natural" person of this type (despite killer tendencies). She was uncorrupted until the twin serpents, Avon and Servalan, showed up in her garden, leading to the deaths of her family. Since a natural innocent wouldn't fit well in most B7 stories, this was quickly lost. Avon and Servalan, of course, represent the corrupt effects of society to varying degrees. In fact, if I pushed this interpretation, I'd have to say Avon represents the potentially good man twisted by corrupt (i.e., high tech) civilization. Servalan simply represents corrupt (i.e., high fashion) civilization. So maybe we should be glad this wasn't a theme in most B7 stories. Ellynne ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:48:10 PST From: "Rob Clother" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Message-ID: <19991118094810.40715.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Fascinating post, Ellyne! Thanks. -- Rob ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:15:01 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Cally Message-ID: <19991118101502.70432.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed benmtt@cwcom.net writes: Ummm....that isn't my impression of that glower she gives Blake in Breakdown (which is with Moloch the worst examples of her lazy conscience). Here she is extremely holier-*and*-more-civilized- than-thou ("among my people such things are considered barbarous"), without making the slightest effort to come up with a better solution to the minor matter of Gan possibly killing them. This scene in Children is clearly the first she's heard of this plan - she didn't even know they were planning to go to Earth, let alone that it was Avon's idea. And she doesn't ask any questions, doesn't try to understand. It's immediate total unthinking condemnation (like with Blake in Breakdown). Hostage is a very different situation...she's studying Avon, trying to work out what's going on in his mind. Trying to understand (see, she can do it if she tries). In Trial she certainly questions their invulnerability, but not their motives, and, as I said, she then doesn't appear to have a qualm in her mind till that moment on the flight deck. Killer right through to The Keeper...(with the exception of that one look both she and Jenna give Blake in Gambit). The problem with Star One, actually, is IMO that the writer needed someone to do a dab of doubting, and they'd killed off the only crew member who could do it with any credibility (Gan, evidence being Shadow - another example of Cally's convenient conscience there, BTW). And since Avon was already involved in a very personal explosion, and neither Jenna nor Vila were really the type... Yes, but do remember while I did lambast her for being self- righteous and (along with just about everyone else) intolerant, I only said she she slides perilously *close* to hypocrisy. She doesn't quite get there (and I can forgive her quite a lot for Voice From The Past. I really really would have liked to see more of the Cally in Voice From The Past.) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:20:05 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Star One and after... (was: Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #320) Message-ID: <19991118102009.75233.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed (See Steve, I'm being very obedient...) then try to convince the audience that Avon would let *again* let someone like that run his life, let alone *his* ship. Mind you, I've thought once or twice that someone like Avalon (i e a rebel totally *unlike* Blake) would have made quite quite an interesting member of the Liberator crew (say in an AU story). She *could* have brought Tarrant and Cally on side (and maybe Dayna, thanks to her grief over her father and hatred of Servalan), pushing them to keep up the fight, and she's pretty enough to inspire Vila to want to please her, at least. Making for a *really* fascinatingly ugly explosion from someone who is decidedly possessive about the Liberator, is still pretending he doesn't miss Fearless Leader and is not about to let someone else into Blake's place for one second... Also, after I wrote: Kai also said: Kai, I didn't mean that as a dig - I hope you didn't take it as such? I was just warning those who *have* heard me on the subject of 'Blake Was Right About Star One (and Avon Agreed)' that I was unable to resist the impulse again (I do love this episode. I do I do I *do* love this episode.) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:22:56 +0000 From: Una McCormack To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: <3833D380.31BC4E2F@q-research.connectfree.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith Proctor wrote: > PS. Fancy doing a panel at Redemption on comparative governments? Comparing > different SF programmes and seeing what type of government control they exerted. I think that's a cool idea for a panel. Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:03:18 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Star One and after... (was: Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #320) Message-ID: <3833DCF5.9614160A@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally Manton wrote: > introduce a new character to take Blake's place (e.g. make > Tarrant heir to Blake's ideals and personality, rather than just > heir to his hairstyle)> > > then try to convince the audience that Avon would let > *again* let someone like that run his life, let alone *his* ship. I agree he'd never put up with that; that would be muddling his loyalties [something INTPs scrupulously avoid]. > Kai also said: > familiar with all the arguments presented before.> > > Kai, I didn't mean that as a dig - I hope you didn't take it as > such? I was just warning those who *have* heard me on the subject > of 'Blake Was Right About Star One (and Avon Agreed)' that I was > unable to resist the impulse again (I do love this episode. I do > I do I *do* love this episode.) Y'see, Kai, she has to be careful not to get me started on 'Blake Was Wrong About Star One (and Avon Knew He Couldn't Stop Blake, So He Wanted It Over With)'. Hi Sally . Mistral -- "There's always an argument."--Avon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:16:33 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Cally Message-ID: <3833E010.34C3EA82@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally Manton wrote: > The problem with Star One, actually, is IMO that the writer needed > someone to do a dab of doubting, and they'd killed off the only > crew member who could do it with any credibility (Gan, evidence > being Shadow - another example of Cally's convenient conscience > there, BTW). And since Avon was already involved in a very > personal explosion, and neither Jenna nor Vila were really the type... I've always thought that she was beginning to see that Blake did occasionally have the edge of fanatacism in him... but perhaps it was just a manifestation of fear? Not of the plan, nor of the rebellion, but of the 'plunge into infinity'. It's true that Cally was already separated from her people, but mightn't the idea of leaving the galaxy entirely strike directly at her subconscious fear of being alone? (Granted, said fear is purely subjective on my part, but I think it fits her background, experiences, and personality.) > (and I can forgive her quite a lot for Voice > >From The Past. I really really would have liked to see more of the > Cally in Voice From The Past.) Eh? That's interesting. Exactly what is it you like about Cally in Voice? Cheers, Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:41:29 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Message-ID: <3833E5E9.C85E3330@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oops! Didn't change the address first time, sorry Ellynne! Ellynne wrote: > In both these groups, a more stable and homogenous society also led to > heavier pressure on individuals to conform, with sometimes terrible > consequences for those who wouldn't or couldn't. Do you mean heavier pressure to conform than nowadays? If so, I'd have to disagree. It may be expressed more subtly, but it's still quite vicious and destructive. I suspect, the closer to societal 'norms' or 'ideals' one falls, the less one is aware of the pressure of one's *own* society. The average medieval housewife probably wasn't overly concerned about the plight of, say, lepers. Part of the irony of B7, IMHO, is that the society Blake wants to establish will eventually become just as oppressive to *some* segments of the population as the Federation is. All societies are. Even if you establish a society where the only rule is that you can't impose your values on somebody else, you have to impose *that* rule on the people who think they *should* impose their values on others. As Aristotle said, democracy inevitably ends in mob rule. > Hmm, I'd better make a B7 connection, quick. OK, here goes. When Dayna > first appeared, she was an obvious "natural" person of this type (despite > killer tendencies). She was uncorrupted until the twin serpents, Avon > and Servalan, showed up in her garden, leading to the deaths of her > family. Since a natural innocent wouldn't fit well in most B7 stories, > this was quickly lost. As B7 connections go, not bad; however, I don't think you can call Dayna's upbringing Edenic. Chel seems enough of a serpent to me. Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 04:20:35 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Cally Message-ID: <3833EF12.5847ABF9@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ben M. wrote: > Sally wrote: > > >I can see what you're saying, but I still think revenge had a > >great deal to do with Cally's behaviour on Saurian Major (the > >wording is important - not 'my death will have meaning" but > >"companions for..." she wants blood). > > I think it's a bit more involved than that. Perhaps > she wants to atone for her "failure" (surviving while > her Saurian Major colleagues all died?), but most of > all she wants to avoid dying "alone and silent". The > desire for revenge may be a contributing factor but it > isn't the beginning and end of her behaviour, in > stark contrast to Avon's plain revenge for revenge's > sake and self-deluded notion of himself as an "executioner" > and self-appointed righter of wrongs in "Rumours". . It's interesting that you say Cally wants to atone for her failure, but Avon just wants revenge? I'd say their motives are very similar. It's always been my thought that Avon was motivated by guilt, and the subconscious thought process went something like: Couldn't save Anna, Can't find Blake, Didn't even *avenge* Anna.... In other words, it was the only constructive thing he could do for the people he loved and lost. Survivor guilt, and personal loyalty. Cally could have easily been motivated by survivor guilt as well as her cultural background. They were both of them quite willing to suffer and die to achieve their ends; the only differences are that Cally was deliberately staging a *suicide*, and that her victims would be faceless Federation employees (who may or may not have ever actually harmed her comrades), whereas Avon knew who he wanted to kill (who was actually a killer himself). But for her to say that her attitude is acceptable and Avon's is not is surely either 1) hypocrisy, 2) jealousy, 3) groupism, i.e. saying that her comrades deserved to be avenged and Anna did not, simply because there were more of them. Hmm. Now that I look at this list, I don't think you can have 2) or 3) without 1). If either of them was self-deluded, it was Cally. Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:51:45 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Message-ID: <19991118.105147.9126.0.Rilliara@juno.com> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:41:29 -0800 mistral@ptinet.net writes: >Ellynne wrote: > >Do you mean heavier pressure to conform than nowadays? If >so, I'd have to disagree. It may be expressed more subtly, but >it's still quite vicious and destructive. I suspect, the closer to >societal 'norms' or 'ideals' one falls, the less one is aware of the >pressure of one's *own* society. The average medieval housewife >probably wasn't overly concerned about the plight of, say, lepers. > I'm going to partly agree, partly disagree. Basically, most things in cultures come with pros and cons. A large support group can also be a large group with with big clout to make you conform--the feeling of obligation cuts both ways. So, say you lived in a small village a thousand years ago where you knew your neighbors would help take care of you if things went bad. That also meant they were very likely to put heavy pressure on you--that you couldn't avoid and that you felt a much larger obligation to listen to--if they thought you _weren't_ doing enough to support yourself or your family. But it could go beyond this. The guy nobody liked had a greater chance of dying in those little squabbles with the neighboring tribe. The people Mayans sacrificed hadn't been too well-like before being tossed in the sinkhole. Small communities were more likely to lable an outcast unfit and take their children. I came across a classic example a few years back where a family was told their baby was stillborn only to find out, fifty years later, the small town hospital he was born in stole babies from 'unfit' parents (in their case, prominent members of wrong religion and poor) to give out for adoption, and this was apparently done with cooperation of various well-placed people in the community. Now, this doesn't mean you won't still read about baby selling in the news or that there haven't been cases in big cities. But, whenever I read about something like this in a big city, it's either a directly criminal enterprise (no tacit support from the powers that be) or there's a greater sense of bureaucracy gone bad (innocent parents losing custody to impersonal agencies that spend more time looking at the rules and statistical averages than they do to the individuals they deal with). If it moves against "those people" it will be with less a sense of personal retaliation. Usually. >> Hmm, I'd better make a B7 connection, quick. Oops. Yes, I'd better do that again. Anybody think Avon was adopted after being stolen from his real family and fraternal twin, Blake? Or maybe he's Inga's brother? When >Dayna >> first appeared, she was an obvious "natural" person of this type >(despite >> killer tendencies). She was uncorrupted until the twin serpents, >Avon >> and Servalan, showed up in her garden, leading to the deaths of her >> family. Since a natural innocent wouldn't fit well in most B7 >stories, >> this was quickly lost. > >As B7 connections go, not bad; however, I don't think you can call >Dayna's upbringing Edenic. Chel seems enough of a serpent to me. > Agreed. I was trying to make fun of the "natural innocent" theme, although (once I thought about it), I could see how it had some connection with Dayna. However, just to push the argument, notice the primitive barbarians only felt obligated to go around killing aliens once there'd been a new infusion due to the war (perhaps their whole prophecy was the result of reading 'Lord of the Flies' one time too often?). Ellynne ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:45:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed 17 Nov, Andrew Ellis wrote: > >You have got to be joking! Being a disaffected member of a Western democracy > >is a whole different ball park. > > > >there were good people working for the Federation, but they didn't have > >enough power to make a change. eg. Governor Le Grand. > > > But when it is as bad as people seem to say on this list, even the army > rebels. Some officers initially refused to work with Travis, but seemed to bow down under threats. 'Old Starkiller' seemed to be kept away from the centre, possibly becasuse a man of his integrity might have been a possible coup leader. A common historical tactic is to have men serving away from their native areas. Lessens the chance of revolt. Armies don't always revolt, or it doesn't always succeed. Look how long Stalin remained in power. I regard him as being on a level with the Federation. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:48:44 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Cally-related. Message-ID: <000b01bf31f7$82fd8880$32428cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew wrote: >>> As our current leader in the UK has stated, "The >>> Establishment" has too much control here. > >>Una replied >>As our current leader of the opposition in the UK replied: 'This is a man >>educated at public school and Oxford with a majority of almost 200 in the >>House of Commons. Who does he think *is* the Establishment?' > >Exactly. thanks for backing me up. > I wouldn't class Robin Blair and his Merry Munchkins as 'The Establishment'. The Big E's got far more sense than to pack out the House of Commons. Oh, the paranoia... Neil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:40:04 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] the Federation Message-ID: <000a01bf31f7$8184a420$32428cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew wrote: >Massacring whole populations. Are you sure they (Victorians) would not have >done it if there were not other empires to keep them in check ? Fairly sure, yes. >Threatening >populations with death by far superior weaponry ? I think they did that. Really? Where and when? The British Empires, like all the European empires of the 18th/19th centuries, was founded on the principle of expanding trade and promoting profit. Beyond that simple, if not crass, motive, there was no other ideological imperative. Certainly there was racism and western supremacist arrogance, as well as a hefty dose of blinkered idiocy (as at, for example, Amritsar), but the Europeans did not set out to destroy foreign cultures simply for being foreign. (Counter-examples may be cited but they represent the exception rather than the norm, such as Sir Garnet Wolsey's Ashante campaign of 1873.) Certainly they used superior weaponry - they couldn't have carved out those empires without them. The 'evil' of the Victorian-era empires lay not in the brutalisation of the colonised peoples, but in their exploitation - of their labour, their land, and their natural resources. (And it's still going on - how else do you think your grocery bill's so low?) Compare the European imperial mode with that of the Spanish in South and Central America two hundred years earlier. Whole civilisations were systematically dismantled in the name of self-righteous Christian superiority. Cities and temples were levelled, the people effectively enslaved, entire tribes exterminated. The closest European parallel would appear to be in the late 1930s/early 40s, when another ideologically-driven regime deployed an excess of might to prevent its right being called into question. Though a little skirmish in the Balkans earlier this year runs a close second. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:45:41 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Cally-related. Message-ID: <0fb501bf31fd$8fedb370$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil wrote: > Andrew wrote: > >>> As our current leader in the UK has stated, "The > >>> Establishment" has too much control here. > > > >>Una replied > >>As our current leader of the opposition in the UK replied: 'This is a man > >>educated at public school and Oxford with a majority of almost 200 in the > >>House of Commons. Who does he think *is* the Establishment?' > > > >Exactly. thanks for backing me up. > > > I wouldn't class Robin Blair and his Merry Munchkins as 'The Establishment'. I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave previously... > The Big E's got far more sense than to pack out the House of Commons. Well, they won't be packing out the Lords anymore, will they? Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:57:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Paul Darrow at Cult TV Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Cult TV have confirmed that for the first time ever, they have broken their 'no repeating of main guests' rule. Who was the gentleman who was so popular that they decided to ask him back next year? Paul Darrow. The venue is Pontins, Barton Hall, Torquay. The date is 27/30 October 2000. The web site is www.culttv.net or you can contact them by e-mail at culttvuk@geocities.com It's going to be a tough weekend for fans. Paul Darrow and Stephen Greiff (and Patrick McGoohan) at Cult TV and Gareth Thomas at Bats. Cult TV is a long weekend break - there are no day memberships. Thus, doing a day at both conventions is probably out of the question - not that I'd really recommend that in any case. Cult TV is a good weekend quite apart from Paul being there. There's a report from the last Cult TV con on my web site - look under 'conventions'. Bats' web site is www.burble.com/bats2000 or e-mail bats2000@burble.com I still don't know which one I'm going to. I'm rather hoping that either Paul or Gareth will get conflicting work and solve the problem for me! Otherwise it will probably be Bats by a whisker - solely because I can't quite resist the chance of seeing Gareth again. Judith PS. Quibell Abduction and Rites of Passage are now listed on the web site. -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:50:26 EST From: Tigerm1019@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Reserved materials Message-ID: <0.64acf6eb.2565dcb2@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/17/1999 7:22:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, susan.moore@uni.edu writes: > Ob B7 ref.: Which of our heroes would actually read the materials the > professors put on reserve? I think Dayna would, assuming the subject interested her. Soolin would probably only do so if it were critical to passing the class. Tarrant would read the materials because he would want to do well in the class. Vila would blow it off and try to cheat off Tarrant's papers. Travis would likely incinerate the materials and the professor with them. Tiger M ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 23:04:07 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias/natural culture Message-ID: <19991118.230411.10014.1.Rilliara@juno.com> I looked at my previous, bloated post on this and decided to cut it down to size. On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:51:45 -0700 "Ellynne G." writes: > >On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 03:41:29 -0800 mistral@ptinet.net writes: >>Ellynne wrote: >> >>Do you mean heavier pressure to conform than nowadays? If >>so, I'd have to disagree. It may be expressed more subtly, but >>it's still quite vicious and destructive. I suspect, the closer to >>societal 'norms' or 'ideals' one falls, the less one is aware of the >>pressure of one's *own* society. The average medieval housewife >>probably wasn't overly concerned about the plight of, say, lepers. >> THe idea is that being in a small group with limited or no interaction with others creates certain pressures. Imagine being trapped with a small group such as, oh, lets say, the B7 crew in an area the size of the Liberator flight deck for, say, three months with no place to retreat and no showers. Let's also say what little food you have stinks (literally and figuratively). There are no books, no view screens, nothing except the same old stories and jokes from Vila over and over and over again. Imagine what Avon's temper in particular is like at this point. So, is there a lot of pressure to conform your behavior to others expectations? Especially if Avon's armed? And your only alternative is to leave for some place where your survival chances are worse? Well, the dark ages weren't usually that dark, even in winter when you did a lot of your living inside a one room hut with a large group of people (and possibly animals) none of whom possessed antipersperant or a toothbrush, but it wasn't a picnic by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, they say our society is more stressful. Scary, isn't it? Ellynne ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #323 **************************************