View Single Post
Old April 25 2010, 10:17 PM   #50
Rush Limborg
Vice Admiral
 
Rush Limborg's Avatar
 
Location: The EIB Network
Re: was ezri right in Tacking into the Wind - are Klingons hypocrites?

Well, let's see...

I will proceed to quote what she actually said--via the link you provided (thanks for that, BTW. ).

Observe:

The economic and ideological shift that occurred--the extreme uniformity we see in human thinking, aside from those who emigrated to breakaway colonies, suggests that those who held other viewpoints were...suppressed (by violence starting in the Post-Atomic Horror, or by force of law thereafter), or by extreme social pressure. Those who dissented, during this latter period, would have exiled themselves to colonies where they could operate outside the reach of the Federation.

...

As for envy? No, I do not envy Federation society. They have some nice things, but they can keep it to themselves. To claim tolerance towards aliens yet show intolerance towards dissenters in their own society--something doesn't add up, and I don't trust that....
To be frank...I see no actual flaw in this line of reasoning. Now...I have a decidedly less cynical view of 24th-century humanity than Nerys--i.e., I view the paradise of Earth as only rationally being brought about by a free, capitalist society, despite latter-day perversion by alleged "progressives"--however, I DO see potential validity in her argument. It is hardly envy; it is simple logic, based on premises drawn from what little information we do have on Trek-history.

Mooving along, she also says:

Their attitude towards the Bajorans at the beginning is very telling (though this shifts over time): they see them as backwards, superstitious bumpkins, and make it their express goal to make Bajor a Federation member--maybe not by force, but certainly to apply pressure in that direction, because it was strategic territory near Cardassia and they wanted it.

Now THAT shifted over time, and thank goodness. But that's definitely how they started out.
Interestingly enough, the UFP's attitude changes and reforms as the POVs of Sisko and Bashir change with experience. I think this reform is a promising indication of what's to come.... But again, Nerys's argument does hold water here. No envy, just cruel reality.

Trek humans claim morals but follow political expediency, at least by the 24th century. (Wasn't quite as bad in the 23rd.) They claim to uphold rights, freedoms, and tolerance, but use the Prime Directive as an excuse to stand by and watch entire worlds and people die or suffer oppression.

...Even when ASKED for help they often refuse. It's nowhere near as clearcut as you seem to think it is. I think "paternalistic" may be a more appropriate term than "imperialistic."
Sorry...she is absolutely correct here. Many times in Trek--especially in TNG, specific requests for help are turned down because the Prime Directive allegedly forbids it....

Interestingly enough, the PD was created to keep the UFP from "Playing God". And yet...the irony is, the authorities often make exceptions to it, simply to justify doing what suits present policy. (To wit...the PD is treated as a Living, Breathing Document.... Only our heros seem to want to treat it objectively.)
__________________
"The saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia.... 'Needs and abilities' are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to 'the State shall take, the State shall give'."
--David Mamet
Rush Limborg is offline   Reply With Quote