I don’t think it was out of character at all - what in his treatment of telepaths (as opposed to mundanes) contradicts that in his character? Rather than being out of character, I think it shows that he shares the general prejudice against telepaths that we repeatedly see in the EA precisely because he treats them differently than he would other people fighting with him. None of the characters were completely white or black, and I think that Sheridan and the other officers having polite prejudice against telepaths was deliberate.
It was in the original.
Well, Smith’s analogy wasn’t just that humans & viruses try to occupy as much of their environ as possible. We (many of us, at least) understand that predation and food scarcity are population-reducing factors that come into play, as well. Smith’s point was that humans and viruses both try to take over to the point of destroying their hosts and continue even when the host is clearly dying and that death will nullify the hosting capability.
In any case, Smith’s analogy is crap and his study of the human creature should have brought him to China’s 1 child per family policy and Japan’s voluntarily declining population (which is becoming its own problem lately). I believe India also had some social & governmental pressure (which I can’t remember but my Indian Ethnography professor alluded to rather vaguely during a few lectures).
My point is that Smith’s research on the enemy should have turned up those policies and shown him that, unlike virii and some other Earth species, humans are contemplative enough to predict overpopulation and its negative impacts (q.v. Malthusian paradox] and have tried to take steps to preempt or mitigate the problem.
Wait, what? Have I been watching the wrong set of movies? I thought Stryker was the guy who wanted to secretly recruit his own private collection of mutants and use them as supersoldiers.
I have always found it quite blatant that the lectures and lessons we (the audience) tend to intrude upon are always about ethics and morality and “…well, that’s it for now. Your assignment is to read up on…” another great piece of literature portraying ethical matters and decisions. Why, it’s almost like Charles set up his school in order to emphasize instruction in positive ethics in order to shape his super-powered students’ in a certain way!
I guess I bought into the movie’s founding premise that England’s ownership of Scotland was either not-completely-settled (it seems the Celts weren’t really bowing to the crown, either, up through the 1990’s) or illegitimate (i.e. via colonization and force-of-arms but not accepted by those who had been colonized – kinda like the South Africa & Dutch situation). Every time I watch that movie and see Edward grumbling, “We can’t even control the whole of our own island…” I want to shout “Because it’s not entirely yours you egotistical imperialist!”
While the movie has a fair amount of historical inaccuracy, some of which was intentional because it’s a war/romance film and not educational history and some just because of general rough edges with film-making, that part of the film seems to be roughly accurate. Edward Longshanks, though widely respected in Europe, way overplayed his hand with Scotland and evidently thought he could just put the Scots into the yoke and be done with it, for the price of resolving a dispute about the Scottish throne. In the end he got a fruitless war that long outlived him, and a much stronger Scottish Crown (and whose descendants would inherit the England!)
Although the “Prima Noctis” thing seems to have been added to the story for the film. It’s a longstanding myth which always seems to have been a thing somewhere and some-when far from the storyteller.
He pretty much permanently ruined a previously cordial relationship where numerous nobles held land on either side of the border and the Scottish court and lowland nobility had been steadily “Normanized”. He gets all due credit for subduing Wales (unless you’re Welsh), but he truly screwed the pooch in Scotland and hard. Which would have a bad knock-on effect in Ireland, which wasn’t solely the failure of his incompetent son.
That combined with the ruinous impact on the English treasury of his adventures, getting repeatedly outmaneuvered by arch-smoothy Philip le Bel and nearly triggering another civil war with some of his nobility, I think in hindsight he looks a bit less accomplished than hagiography typically paints him. It’s just that there is such a contrast between Edward I and III (who himself died having lost most of what he had once gained) vs. the far more woeful Eddy II that they tend to get quite a comparatively big boost.
If we’re talking about historical figures who got a bad rap in movies, a good example is Santa Anna and the Mexicans at the Battle of the Alamo. Like the Union in the Civil War, they were fighting to preserve the unity of their country. They were fighting against invading immigrants, many of them whom had come into the country illegally, who were trying to impose their foreign culture on a province of Mexico. In particular, although the Texan rebels were supposedly fighting for freedom, one of the important issues was that they wanted to re-institute slavery, which had been abolished by Mexico.
Santa Anna had his faults as an authoritarian, and because he had prisoners executed (although such a policy had been announced in advance), but overall the Mexicans were as justified in attacking the Texans as the Union was in the Civil War.
I disagree. Mexico was in the throes of civil war from all sides. They never had much control north of the Rio Grande, pretty much all they did was send hated tax collectors. Santa Anna was a despot and a evil one to boot.
Mexico welcomed the texans as a stabilizing influence vs the Comancheros, etc.
And Mexico hadnt really abolished slavery- only on paper.
At first, yes. Not after waves of them started pouring in. They passed a law to prohibit more immigrants from the US, but the Americans kept coming in illegally.
Yet Mexico was some 35 years ahead of the US in this respect, and the fact that Mexico had made slavery illegal was one of the issues that led to the Texan rebellion. And the fact that the Texans were flouting the law showed how little respect they had for their adopted country.
One of my favorite trivia facts is that the only people to gain their liberty as a direct result of the Battle of the Alamo were two slaves owned by Travis and Jim Bowie, who the Mexicans freed after their masters’ deaths.
From the battle of the Alamo, yes, but from Texas liberation? 40000 Tejanos were feeds from the tyranny of Santa Anna. Remember, the main reason Texas revolted was they wanted a return to the 1824 Constitution of Mexico . Santa Anna had dissolved congress and abrogated the Mexican Constitution.
Note not only Texas revolted from Santa Annas dictatorship and rule- Nuevo leon, Coahuila, Oaxaca, Tamaulipas, Zacatecas* , the Yucatan and others revolted, with Yucatan lasting until 1848 as a Independent nation. So, the main reason for ALL these states revolting was Santa Anna being a dictator, not slavery.
*After Santa Anna Zacatecas he let his troops pillage the city; over 2,000 noncombatants were killed.
So in your view the lives of the slaves held by the Tejanos were completely irrelevant? One of the results of the Texas rebellion was the re-institution of slavery in that territory. Are you denying that?
The other states may have had issues as well, but one of the important issues for Texas was slavery. Did any of the other rebellious state re-institute slavery as Texas did?
No, not irrelevant, but clearly not the reason for the revolt. Did the TEN other states revolt because they had slaves? Or was it a general revolt against a mad dictator?
It wasnt one of the reasons Texas gave. The main reasons given was the abrogation of the Constitution and the lack of texas representation. Unlike with the CSA, slavery was not a listed reason.
Sorry, DrDeth, your contention that slavery was not one of the major issues in the Texas rebellion is absurd. It really goes against any serious historical account of the causes of the rebellion. Whatever reasons that other provinces had for rebelling, slavery was unequivocally one of the major issues for the Tejanos, and also one of the major issues for the Mexicans. Texas was certainly on the wrong side of history relative to Mexico. (I will also note that all of the former Spanish colonies in the New World banned slavery before the US did.)
Well, it was certainly a concern of the rebellions, but it wasn’t a primary one. Plus, it wasn’t a concern for Santa Anna, as far as I can tell. He was only interested in power for himself, and never really stopped grabbing for it, even when slavery didn’t enter into the question. Santa Anna was only interested in power for himself, as far as I can tell.
I think it was. One of the motives of the new colonists coming into Texas was the opportunity to annex that province to the US and expand slavery.
It wasnt listed.
Look if old Abe has torn up the Constitution, dissolved congress and proclaimed himself president for life (and incidentally slaves are freed)- so ten free states and one slave states went in rebellion - would you say the revolt was over slavery or a despot dissolving democratic means?
The Texicans specifically mentioned getting representation and getting back the Constitution of 1834. They didnt mention slavery. Could that also have been a reason? Sure. But it certainly wasnt a reason for the other TEN states- for them the anti-democratic antics of Santa Anna was enough all on their own. So clearly, the tearing up on the constitution and the dissolving of congress were all the reasons needed.
Once again, slavery was indisputably one of the reasons for the Texan rebellion. Claiming that it wasn’t is simply ignoring any serious historical analysis of the causes.
Then why not revolt in 1829? That is when Mexico banned slavery- in theory. But the Texans didnt revolt until 1835, six years later. hmm. Why? Because they were allowed to keep their slaves, there were many exemptions and loopholes in that law- and one allowed Americans to keep their slaves.
Instead, the Texicans were Ok- as long as they got fair representations in the Mexican Congress. In fact here is what they asked for: Conventions held by the Texas colonists in 1832 and 1833 resulted in resolutions petitioning the Mexican government for an extension of the tariff exemption, for administrative separation from Coahuila (that is, the establishment of Texas as a state unto itself), and for the repeal of the law preventing Anglo-American immigration. No mention of slavery. Why didnt they ask for a exemption from the slavery laws, if that was so important?
Then Santa Anna tore up the Constitution and dissolved congress, whereupon no less than ELEVEN states of Mexico went into revolt- for those reasons and those reasons only. Ten plus Texas.
Now I am sure the few slaveholders in Texas were pleased they could keep their slaves- but at no time was that a reason given and the timeline argues strongly against it. Nor did Santa Anna ever mention freeing the slaves.
Nope. I don’t really even need to provide a cite. Just Google “slavery Texas revolution” and you’ll find ample documentation. Your contention is basically the same as the assertion that “states rights” was the reason for the secession of the Confederacy.
But I can’t think of any reason this actually registered in Santa Anna’s reasons to try to suppress the rebellion in Texas. He wanted power for Santa Anna, and he didn’t care how he got it, which is pretty much why he’s generally viewed as someone who failed Mexico. If he had a point, he’d probably be hailed, but he never really had one. Don’t elevate a man purely composed of ambition by elevating some of his adversaries’ failings.
The Texans could legally keep their slaves.
They didnt include slavery on their list of requests.
The texicans didnt revolt until Santa Anna went dictator and ten more Mexican states revolted for that reason also.
I dont need to see a hundred Op-Eds. One good cite
Does list slavery as the one of last and most minor reasons, since Texans were allowed their slaves- but indeed “There were those by 1836 who felt an independent Republic of Texas in which slavery was firmly and for all time recognized and respected was preferable to Mexico with an uncertain future for slavery.” So, a minor side reason, but not the immediate cause of the revolt. Why not revolt in 1829 then?
But the primary and immediate reason was The most immediate cause of the Texas Revolution was the refusal of many Texas, both Anglo and Mexican, to accept the governmental changes mandated by “Siete Leyes” which placed almost total power in the hands of the Mexican national government and Santa Anna…
Many Mexicans felt exactly the same way.
No, not at all, since the CSA specifically listed slavery as a reason. Each and every state, and the CSA as a total. They openly admitted it. Nor did Lincoln tear up the Constitution, dissolve congress and proclaimed himself president for life.
Santa Anna was a bad, evil dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own civinian people. At no time did Santa Anna mention slavery, either. Nor did the Texans.
It was a minor side issue.
However, if Santa Anna had been victorious, it would have resulted in the liberation of the slaves held by the Tejanos. Even if that might not have been his primary motivation, the result would have been morally superior to the Texans enslaving people for another 29 years. The Texans were very much not the good guys here.