Oh. Well that should improve the chances of white colonization of Africa (or where ever else they end up). Cecil Rhodes and others will only be about 150,000 years too late.
I’m still waiting to learn about a single colonial adventure that began as an endevour to better the lives of an indigenous population. I think that we can take it that Lee spoke truthly. He certainly supported his words by his actions (discarding tech, splitting the population and not building a central city). That doesn’t line up with any colonial adventurism with which I am familiar.
To sort of answer your question, Pike, to avoid what I think Arguchik is contending, the only way to avoid “white washing” and putting white folks into the mix at the dawn of man - especially through Hera - would be for them to go to an area of the planet that could sustain life, but was uninhabited by homo sapiens (or by any other species of man that was walking upright and had opposible thumbs).
I didn’t really like the robot montage at the end, it just didn’t feel very BSG.
I did, and the reason why is I thought it was showing us that the cycle was delayed but not broken. Meaning as long as humans want make their lives easier through Tech. it will end up biting them in the sorry Barb
IMHO
Well technically, an ad hominem attack is not an argument, it’s the avoidance of argument–a misdirection, a logical fallacy–but I guess you’d probably see that as splitting hairs.
beyond the Starbuck going “poof” yeah IM ok wiht it
tho I wish I hadn’t listened to the RDM cast - I liked his original ideas for the season much better.
Actually, pretty much all of them began as “an endeavor to better the lives of the indigenous population.” If you were to ask the colonizers, that is what they would say they were trying to do. But uneven power balances have a tendency to go another way, unfortunately. You could potentially make the argument to me that Lee has somehow managed to even out the power imbalance between his 30,000+ “huddled masses” and the “tribal natives” by getting the colonials to give up technology. Maybe–but as others have observed in other threads, Adama kept his viper; how many other people do you think kept their sidearms, etc.? How do you suppose they’re going to react–even the ones who didn’t keep their sidearms–when the “tribal natives” start defending their territory, or otherwise objecting to the incursion of this HUGE group of people?
To sort of answer your question, Pike, to avoid what I think Arguchik is contending, the only way to avoid “white washing” and putting white folks into the mix at the dawn of man - especially through Hera - would be for them to go to an area of the planet that could sustain life, but was uninhabited by homo sapiens (or by any other species of man that was walking upright and had opposible thumbs).
I’m not sure there would be a way for them to write this aspect of the story–i.e. to write the BSG contingent into the “dawn of man (sic)”–without some form of whitewashing. Or if you take a previous poster’s contention that the “huddles masses” from the Colonial Fleet are a truly multicultural bunch, I suppose you could say that they’ve turned the human origins story into a “melting pot” or “salad bowl.”
Science aside, I just think it’s bad storytelling. And I’ll reiterate: I LOVE this show. I have loved it from the first time I watched it, and have talked many of my friends into watching it. But I loved it for its depiction of human complexity, human foibles despite good intentions–witness the corruption of Laura Roslin, who started out with the best of intentions. I loved it for its refusal to divide the world up into neat “good” and “evil” categories, though they started slipping back into that with Cavil, a little bit–though the arguments he made to Ellen were quite passionate, and actually resembled Ahab’s ravings at God in Moby Dick. And then they threw this neat little bit in, about “oh, the colonials are our ancestors from Africa,” and…bleah. Sorry. I find it icky.
Cylonia?
Really?
You liked that idea?
Really?
I think thats a much better way to end it then have them land now, land in the future, or just show earth from orbit.
I had a loooot of mixed emotions regarding the ending.
-
The hints we were receiving set an expectation that a lot of important people were going to die. The list isn’t short exactly, but yeah… I had braced myself to witness the violent end to many if not most of the main characters, and when it didn’t happen I felt like they chickened out or something. Mainly due to false expectations based on vague hints and pseudo-spoilers.
-
I was disappointed that the most popular theory came true. It’s not a bad thing, I guess. It’s a compliment to the fan base. I was just hoping for something so clever I hadn’t conceived of it yet. Again, bad assumptions and unrealistic expectations on my part.
-
I love my BSG. I want more BSG. But when I think of series finales, I don’t want hints of commercialized prequel/sequel fodder. It seemed like the whole angel story and a majority of the mystery of BSG was left wide open for future stories, maybe in made for dvd movies we are hearing about or scifi specials. I felt like they wanted to hold out on some juicy nuggets which took away from the whole “finale” fanfare IMO.
-
I love that most of the dramatic content was dove-tailed together and I don’t feel like I was cheated out of anything in that regard. I appreciate how they handled Starbuck’s ending, but I so wanted more answers. I did think sending Tyrol to the Scottish highlands felt a little gratuitous… especially when they refer to him by his little used first name for emphasis.
My single greatest (and most pleasant) surprise was how nicely they tailored the ending to be a prequel for the original series. And to top it off we get a few bars of television’s greatest anthem. This was a far larger nod to the original series than I ever expected.
Wow, I sound pretty negative in this post. To show the other side of my mixed emotions I’ll state that I love this show. Even if I felt like the ending didn’t necessarily fill the shoes that the rest of the series provided and I am probably victim of the hype factor, I love the series from beginning to end.
I guess, if those are the only options. But are they? Again, I guess…given that they had a concrete goal of ending the show right here, right now, so as to be able to end it on their terms rather than continue on without a firm commitment from SciFi (SyFy, whatever the sorry Barb) to give them the 5 seasons they initially wanted (if I’m recalling that correctly).
I don’t like that they abandoned the moral ambiguity, the nuanced portrayal of human complexity, that they had spent…how many years, again?..developing, in favor of this neat little origin story. And they didn’t even acknowledge the difficulties and complexities the colonials are inevitably going to face, trying to knit themselves into this world that is already inhabited. Lee just said, “We’ll give them the best of ourselves,” and 30,000 people happily sighed and said, “OK.” And nobody thought to ask…OK, but how do we avoid giving them the worst of ourselves, along with the best? Because this show has gone to great lengths to establish that the best and the worst always travel together, even within the same frakking person. Giving up technology is a symbolic step in that direction, I’ll grant, but that technology is simply a materialization of a much deeper will to technology, and that will is rooted in both the desire to survive (not a bad thing) and the desire to dominate, to master, in short to power. How are you going to get rid of that, from 30,000+ people? And why on earth would you assume that it’s not already there in the early humans they observed (I won’t say “encountered,” because they only looked at them from a distance; they didn’t interact or attempt to communicate with them in any way)?
For that matter, how did they find out that the early humans were “genetically compatible,” anyway?
I know, I know, it’s a TV show, it’s fiction. I’m supposed to suspend my disbelief–and I can, to a point, but this aspect of the ending broke it for me, for all of the reasons I’ve discussed above and probably more if I keep scratching at it. It sounds lame to add this, but I will anyway: in terms of the characters, I found the finale very satisfying. I like that Starbuck just disappeared. I like that Galen went off by himself. I like that Lee wants to explore. I even like that Adama wants to build a cabin, though I don’t see how he’s going to do that in the newly established “technology-free” zone.
We probably have pretty much beaten this one into the dirt, but a few thoughts. Let’s start the “modern” age of colonization in 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Of course, true coloniztion did not begin until sometime thereafter, when permanent settlements were established as opposed to the practice of grabbing as many riches as one could and then shipping them back to (initially Spain and Portugal).
From that time forward I cannot think of a single colonial power that ever went into another’s “Land” on the stated basis of doing it for the good of the indigenous people. One way or the other it was always about acquiring wealth (and thereby power) - for nations, “companies” and individuals - with the possible exceptions of the Pilgrims and Puritans in Massachusetts and Catholics in Maryland. Those outposts truly were about religion (although one could contend that they really were about “life styles”). No secret was made about any of this.
Historically, it was only after the European nations established their colonies that the rationalizations started. (Imagine that.) And, as you no doubt know with your background, how much proclaiming about the philanthropic nature of colonization was made varied widly from European nation to European nation. (No Belgian ever would have written something akin to Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden” - not to single out the Belgians or to support the often made argument that the British did more good than harm.) We Americans were particularly sanctimonious about our colonial adventures, once we had our foot hold on somebody else’s land.
So, after ALL that, my simple point was that the BSG survivors, unlike their European counterparts from about 149,500 years later, appear to have benign intentions when it comes to their plan for settling down in East Africa. I’ll take Lee at his word.
Now, whether it would work out that way is a WHOLE other story, as you note. The science is lousy. As others have posted, thanks to the arrival of Lee & Co. both groups stand a pretty good chance of being wiped out by “germs” carried by the other. (In which case you and I are really screwed.) If not that, as you suggest, there’s a good chance that the surivors are going to dominate the local folks - even if that was not their intent at the get go. (There would be a good chance of this occurring if man had initially evolved in southern Sweden - or anywhere else for that matter - and the BSG crowd came along.)
You and I know what happened here. RDM (and perhaps others) had to wrap this up. At the end of season 2, when they knew that the series would be finite, they also knew that, when all was said and done, Our Earth would be the last stop. (I mean it didn’t have to be, but it had to be, right? The “oh my gosh” moment for the casual viewer.)
To “stun” us even more (I know, I know) the not particularly novel idea that the survivors needed to somehow be our ancestors came into play. How to do that? Well, can’t send them to ancient Germanic lands - man did not first evolve there. It had to Africa, and they hit on the notion of Mito Eve - which is pretty nifty at first blush, but not so great when one thinks about it for a (short) while.
So there it is and here we are, and I haven’t even addressed (at least not in this post) how what frustrates me the most about the ending is “IT”.
And yes, BSG is my favorite show of all time - with the possible excpetion of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (seriously).
Everyone expected them to do that. I found them surprising us about it be a better decision, instead of Helo needlessly dying in the corridor because he didn’t check his 6 well enough
I always considered the most popular theory to be that they would all die.
I’m sorry, commercialized prequel/sequel fodder? Where? I saw some social commentary/warning about going into AI.
I didn’t really think it was necessary, but it didn’t seem to say “KEEP BUYING OUR STUFF”
I would have liked more Starbuck answers, though I did like that Tyrol wanted to go off by himself somewhere.
They… what? Did we watch the same show?
Personally, I would have been a little more satisfied if the last shot had been Adama sitting on the ridge looking off into the distance. Hera had already been set up as the shape of things to come, and reinforcement of that was interesting but not necessary.
I didn’t at all mind the whole God thing, it was pretty apparent that religion in BSG was based at least somewhat in fact, and that there was probably a higher power moving some pieces around somewhere.
I also did not have any problem with “white” people being dropped in Africa. And Australia. And every other continent in more than a few places. I didn’t get any supremacy vibes, I didn’t get any colonialist vibes, I didn’t get any “we are better, smarter than they are,” I didn’t get any slavery vibes. I got a ‘hey, we should see if we can merge with these people’ vibe.
Did anyone else think of the Golgafrincham B Ark and the cavemen in Hitch Hikers? I can see parallels in the outcomes here…
One thing that strikes me amid all the talk of colonialism and the associated power relations is this. Historical colonialism has often (more often than not) been cast by the colonisers as a civilising mission - the “advanced” colonisers bringing the light of civilisation to the benighted savages in order to “elevate” them to a higher level (justifying all sorts of theft and brutality along the way).
This approach has been supported by a theory of civilisation based on ideas of progressive, linear social evolution that are in turn based on misreadings of darwinian evolutionary theory and a profound misunderstanding about the origins and nature of civilisation. In this tradition, the history of humanity is seen in terms of an inevitable “evolution” from primitive hunting and gathering societies to herding, then village agriculture and finally civilisation in the form of cities and states. This is at best simplistic and at worst utter craaap.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Venice and my iPod and many aspects of civilisation, but it really looks like it didn’t emerge as the result of a progressive advancement of human society. Rather, it appears that the first civilisations were by-products of adaptation to resource scarcity - they all emerged in areas that were turning to desert, and they all developed in the last remaining productive areas, namely river valleys. It seems that the very first civilisations were products of last resort, not progressive advancement. Life for many was worse in these new, highly structured societies, than in earlier, more “primitive” cultures (more violence, poorer nutrition, more disease, greater exploitation, less individual autonomy, harder labour, etc). While violence and conflict is not unique to civilised societies, orchestrated colonialism on a large (e.g. regional, continental and arguably planetary) scale probably is, as it takes the organisation, mobilisation and ideological underpinning that only a relatively centralised and “advanced” state is capable of. Civilisation may have gone on to produce all sorts of wonderful things, but it has a darker side, and is built on inequality, power and exploitation - the “domestication” of people as the archaeologist Guillermo Algaze put it. That’s an archaeological, not a Marxist, perspective 
It is therefore significant that Lee is essentially rejecting civilisation when he says “no cities”. By rejecting civilisation he is rejecting the forms of social organisation which go with it, which are exploitative, hierarchical and prone to violence and the subjugation of one group by another. So, by rejecting civilisation, perhaps Lee is - to a certain extent - getting away from the culture and the mindsets associated with colonialism, at least as historically practiced.
Obviously it didn’t work, at least not indefinitely.
Just a thought.
I really liked the ending. There are a bunch of things I can nitpick ( and I would be really really correct in doing so) but the quick answer is “i liked it”.
I just want an answer to the Harbringer of Death thing. Other than that… I really felt it was great. Not answering that was a BIG let down… just because I bought Razor nad spent a year wanting to know the answer.
Oh, and on the subject of the this thread, I like it too. I would have preferred the ending to have taken place in our future. I thought it would have provided more fertile ground for wrapping things up, and that there was some inconsistency and plot holes that could have been addressed better this way, but I can live with it. 7/10 - could do better but still a great ride. I’ve rambled about the ending elsewhere so won’t do it again here.
I think it was one of those ‘critical comma’ things. She is the harbinger of death (for the Cylons) COMMA she will lead you all to your end (last time you have to pack boxes.)
I agree, Pike & to toot my own horn here, I have felt that all along!
IYKWIM …heh
Three wks later, I’m good with the ending. I find there is still much to think about, like Starbuck, is she finally at peace. What happens to Lee, Galen, Adama. Wow, what a ride !
I’m good with the ending. There were two questions I wanted answered, I got both of them answered (with bonus Agathon happiness!), and I’m pleased. Also, I liked the little montage at the end. Cheesy, maybe, and sinister if you choose to look at it that way, but it made me laugh. And after the emotional suckerpunch that this series is, I needed that laugh.