LOL. That’s not why I’m being snarky. It’s just my nature, hence…my userid, which I’ve been using since…like…1994 or so.
My un-snarky reply would be…honestly…open-mouthed shock that anyone would think assimilation of any sort might solve all of the problems of colonialism. It’s a pretty story, but…nope.
Well, it hasn’t often been tried. By definition, colonialism is the imposition of the newcomers’ will on the aborigines.
And I think it’s a little naive of Lee to think it will be a peaceful process. He says “We’ll give them the best of ourselves” or something to that effect, as if these people, who they perceive as being “without language” (as someone pointed out in a different thread, this is ridiculous–it’s clearly a cooperative hunting group…which means language, even if it’s not the kind of language we speak today), will regard the propisition as a “gift.” More likely, they will defend their territory against the invaders.
But all of that is neither here nor there. My point is simply that the narrative employs a colonialist logic. This is one reading of it that I am offering. The evidence I am using to support my reading is a direct parallel between the words spoken by the characters in the show, to the words written and published by colonizing people in our own history, many of whom started out with peaceful, benign intentions not unlike Lee’s.
Anyway. I see it this way, based on just a first viewing of the episode that I’ve digested for a couple of days–but the parallels with colonial logic struck me immediately. Take or leave, as you see fit. Someday, perhaps I’ll write a paper and develop the argument more fully. (Yes…I am an academic–like Audra, I specialize in literary and cultural studies; specifically, I focus on biology and politics–ideas about genomics, evolution, race, and gender. I studied biology as an undergrad, and would be an evolutionary ecologist if I had continued on to graduate school immediately after fininshing my B.S. So that’s where I’m coming from, if it helps at all.)
Perhaps. You could always write a sequel.
I would have been completely happy if they had ended the show right at this scene:
Even with no explanation as to when in our planet’s history or what they did after arrival. 
LOL–you mean fanfic? I’ve never tried my hand at that before…
assimilation of any sort might solve all of the problems of colonialism.
Who wrote that?
many of whom started out with peaceful, benign intentions not unlike Lee’s.
Really? Which colonialists did?
Give it a go. You’ve got a variation on the Arthurian mythos half done already.
Well, a lot of them said they did.
I was completely satisfied with the finale. They covered each persons story and the ending was what I’d hoped for. Starting over was exactly what I would have liked to do and making “God” a real character was excellent. I loved Baltar’s speech when he finally realized what was really going on and how “God” really works. I also loved Lee talking about hove they were moving closer to technology and away from our souls. I didn’t really like the robot montage at the end, it just didn’t feel very BSG.
I do agree that the appearance of the Colonials just arriving in their fleet does have the ring of Colonialism to it (yikes, their name even says their colonists). However, I think that is exactly what Lee was hoping to avoid by getting rid of the bulk of their technology. He wanted to interact with the Earth humans as equals. Yes, they were more advanced technologically and artisticly, they would still require access to the local ecological knowledge of the Earth humans to truly have a chance at long term survival…
Now what would have been better even if they left their technology. Would be to have a contingent take the tech they had. Find an uninhabited continent to build a new civilization. Say some where between the Canary islands and Bimini. With contacts all over the planet it would have been better way of guiding the neanderthals. Gee I wonder what they would call themselves?
Well, a lot of them said they did.
Can anybody name one who meant it - like Lee probably does? If I recall, he doesn’t have any mother or father country to return to after he has made his fortune, to send resources back to, to protect trade routes for or whose military ambitions would be advanced by colonial outposts.
To liken these survivors to “colonialists” in any historical sense of the word is utter nonsense. I am astounded that any self proclaimed educated person would advance the argument.
Lee’s approach may not work. But if his real motive was colonializm, he would not be dividing his “troops”, letting go of weapons or trying to communicate.
Oy. Can we handle the arguments, and not the person advancing them?
The closest analogy I can think of might be the Scandinavians in America. We know they got here, and we have no idea what happened. It’s possible they were exterminated by the natives. But it’s equally possible that they, having no particular tech advantage (aside from the ocean voyaging thing) just blended in after a bit.
The answer, of course, is yes. But I didn’t throw the first punch. However, if the acrimony continues, I shall simply address it with my vast knowledge of just about everything and astoundingly persuasive manner of communicating it.
Language and communication are two different things. Communication expresses a known idea that doesn’t change, language uses the existing lexicon to describe new ideas. The hunting group would, at the very least, have communication. If they indeed don’t have language, I don’t view that as negative. Actually, communication would come first. That’s my two cents!
I rewatched the finale yesterday and enjoyed it all the more. LOVE the LOTR theory behind Starbuck, makes a lot of sense. Overall I feel very satisfied with the ending.
Good point! Wolves, lions and chimpanzees all form cooperative hunting groups and they don’t have language.
Although, I do have a hard time believing that humans 150 kya with brains the same size as ours didn’t have language, but then I don’t expect RDM to have a consulting anthropologist on staff…
“I am astounded that any self proclaimed educated person would advance the argument.”
Dude…whatever.
What I actually argued was…their logic is a colonialist logic. It is. Because, like, the people who wrote the thing aren’t actually from a different galaxy, you know? They’re from this culture (Western culture…to oversimplify), which is steeped in colonialist logic from top to bottom.
Now if you wanted to argue that RDM and DE are using that logic to make a paradoxical point–which is something I’m actually thinking about, thanks to this thread–that would be an interesting conversation, but to engage in an essentially ad hominem attack on me is really…just gratuitous and irritating.
You’re (I presume) from this culture too. Does that make your argument a colonialist one?
What would you have the RTF do instead of what they did?
I have to say I’m astounded! A person purposely picks the name “arguchik” & proudly proclaims this is why she’s snarky to others disagreeing with her but then turns around & gets bent because of an ad-homminem response to her original argumentativeness. It takes all kinds I guess.