Why do so many people hate 'Insurrection' so much?

[Nyotarules]

Halkan are (apparently) indigious to their planet, the So'na aren't.

So if the Federation discovered the Halkans had 'only' been living there for 400 years then its ok to take their resources?

 

[Commishsleer]

Mmmmm I think why I hate Insurrection is because I hate the Baku.
Arrogant self-righteous hippies - they're like Season 1 Riker. Ugghh.

I so don't care what happens to them...

 

[Nyotarules]

Suppose someone lives on a piece of land he owns that is desired to lay a new rail track on -- if worst comes to worst and both the person absolutely refuses to budge and the government/huge company is adamant that the track should run there and nowhere else, if the stakes are high enough (or the common good important enough) he will ultimately simply be expropriated and paid a compensation-- there's a reason most, if not all, countries have provisions for that in their laws.

Some people live on a continent for thousands of years and an explorer comes along and 'discovers' said piece of land, sticks a flag on it and claims the land and all its resources for Queen X of _______ should said original settlers roll over, shrug their shoulders and say 'come on over'? Or are they entitled to say 'Piss off and don't come back.'

 

[Nyotarules]

Would the Ba'ku have been willing to sell the planet?

There is no money in the Federation, they do things to better themselves like claim ownership of other sentient beings star systems.

 

[φ of π]

It may been interesting if the Ba'ku were refugees from The Borg assimilating the rest of their species, and the reason they maintained a bronze-age level of society was specifically to hide from The Borg.

It could have opened up some interesting dynamics.

 

[DonIago]

So if the Federation discovered the Halkans had 'only' been living there for 400 years then its ok to take their resources?

What if it was an off-shoot of the Halkans who had left their planet, were consequently dying, and would only survive if the Halkans let them back on the planet...and the Halkans were refusing to do so?

 

[lurok]

I just say every time these INS threads come up: watch the movie with the Frakes/Sirtis commentary. It's an absolute delight

 

[MacLeod]

What if it was an off-shoot of the Halkans who had left their planet, were consequently dying, and would only survive if the Halkans let them back on the planet...and the Halkans were refusing to do so?

Wouldn't that fall under the Prime Directive as an internal matter?

 

[Nyotarules]

What if it was an off-shoot of the Halkans who had left their planet, were consequently dying, and would only survive if the Halkans let them back on the planet...and the Halkans were refusing to do so?

Then that is the Halkans problem and nothing to do with the Federation. As the crew discovered when they found out the Son'a and the Bak'u were the same people.

 

[Nyotarules]

Wouldn't that fall under the Prime Directive as an internal matter?

Exactly! Unless people expect the Federation to be interfering in the affairs of other cultures because it worked out so well when that happened in Earth's history.

 

[DonIago]

Yes, well, the Baku-Son'a matter should also be handled under the Prime Directive by that logic. The Federation should back off and let matters take their course.

Of course, from everything we're presented with that means the Baku will end up dead.

That is what you're saying, right?

 

[φ of π]

Yes, well, the Baku-Son'a matter should also be handled under the Prime Directive by that logic. The Federation should back off and let matters take their course.

Of course, from everything we're presented with that means the Baku will end up dead.

That is what you're saying, right?

Why would that be bad?

Their "designated hero" status is nothing more than an Informed Attribute anyway.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes, well, the Baku-Son'a matter should also be handled under the Prime Directive by that logic. The Federation should back off and let matters take their course.

Of course, from everything we're presented with that means the Baku will end up dead.

That is what you're saying, right?

Question, is Son'a space within Federation space our outside of it? if it's the later the Federation could revoke the Son'a right to travel through Federation space and tell them to leave our territory or we'll destroy your ships.

 

[Nyotarules]

Yes, well, the Baku-Son'a matter should also be handled under the Prime Directive by that logic. The Federation should back off and let matters take their course.

Of course, from everything we're presented with that means the Baku will end up dead.

That is what you're saying, right?

Klingons end up dead during their civil war, or were you expecting the Federation to take part in that as well. Actually Picard/Federation only stepped in once it was proven the Romulans were behind it all.

 

[MacLeod]

Klingons end up dead during their civil war, or were you expecting the Federation to take part in that as well. Actually Picard/Federation only stepped in once it was proven the Romulans were behind it all.

From memory the Federation stepped in to prevent Romulan interference, which later led them to proving the Romulans were involved.

 

[Nyotarules]

From memory the Federation stepped in to prevent Romulan interference, which later led them to proving the Romulans were involved.

No they didn't Worf left the Enterprise and went to fight in the war, Picard left.

 

[ItIsGreen]

Yeah, to everyone who's claiming the Son'a were intending to wipe out the Baku from the get-go and never planned to work in even marginally good faith with the Federation, I say - citation needed.

Because what we see from the get-go is the Son'a working with the Federation, even if they've committed pertinent lies of omission. The holoship was Starfleet property, so it could be inferred that the Baku were going to end up in their care if they were relocated.

I'd argue reluctantly so - because they needed to keep the Federation happy and follow their stupid rules to get access to the planet. As I said previously, Ru'afo was quick enough to kill Dougherty and throw the switch on the collector thingy with people still down on the planet as soon as it looked like he wouldn't get what he wanted (and yet some people here would have us believe he's in the right).

I still wonder why the Federation Council considered this planet as their own, and presumably does not do so in most other cases of planets with a non-Federation population in Federation space (considering the planet the property of the population).

"PICARD: A planet in Federation space.
DOUGHERTY: That's right. We have the planet. They have the technology."

Not "A Federation planet", "A planet in Federation space".

hadn't been too long on the planet.

Three. Hundred. Years.

If Picard found Harry Mudd on the planet (after living there for a century), would he have started the Insurrection against Starfleet to defend the rights of one man?

For one, Picard wouldn't have a clue who the hell Harry Mudd was.
For two, Harry Mudd is a Federation subject. Completely different scenario.

Not necessarily.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario, for example.

Suppose that the region and the planets had been claimed 500 years ago by another empire, "x". 200 years later the Ba'ku come and settle there. Empire "x" never notices (or doesn't take the trouble to drive them out). Another 200 years later (so 100 years ago from our perspective), during negotiations, the entire region and its planets are ceded to the Federation.

At that point in time, the Federation would have the oldest rights, 200 years predating those of the Ba'ku, even though they themselves are younger. In that case, all the Ba'ku can lay claim to is of long-term squatting that might (or might not) give them certain rights of usage/ownership (but there already was a discussion about this).

Of course, this is just a hypothetical scenario. There's nothing in the movie that indicates anything like this would the case-- or anything countering it. We simply don't know the exact circumstances, but there might very well be good precedent for the Federation to consider the planet as their own, and not the Ba'ku's.

And if there were something in the film explaining unequivocally that the Federation actually owned the damn planet, I'd have a different stance - but then the whole point of the film would be moot.

I think I basically brought this up before when I compared the Baku to (potentially) squatters, and asked at what point does squatting make a property legally the property of the squatters...

My view would be that a race unquestionably owns their homeworld, but for planets they later claim, the race can't claim unequivocally that the planet is theirs...and no amount of squatting on the planet makes it unequivocally theirs.

Hell, what if other sentient life subsequently evolved on the world the Baku settled on? Would it be able to claim eminent domain and kick the Baku off?

What about planets that have been colonised by other worlds/powers? Would you have the same view if the Romulans tried to boot an officially sanctioned Federation colony off a particular planet that they couldn't demonstrate had been previously claimed by the Empire, simply because they wanted something on the planet?

Besides which, there's not much chance of sentient life evolving if the Son'a have their way, as harvesting the radiation renders the planet uninhabitable - actually, there's another point, there's life other than the Ba'ku down on the planet. Birds and fish etc. Remember the whole planet search in TWOK? Genesis would completely destroy all matter on the surface and reconfigure it. "There can't be so much as a microbe, or the show's off".

And the Celts are still living in the UK..

The UK has been invaded so many times I don't think it even matters anymore. Hell, I'm a quarter Belgian.

And that's me about done with this thread. This whole thing has left me aghast that there are people in 2018 (current year argument) that think the Son'a are not only in the right but that what they want to do is perfectly acceptable. Seriously people, have a fucking look at yourselves.

My parting questions to those people are:
Would your stance be the same if a comparable thing happened to a group of people now, here on Earth?
At what number of people does it become unacceptable?
Would you still feel the same if it were you being displaced?

 

[Tenacity]

If my moving/relocation would thereby make available a health resource identical to the particles, I would move voluntarily.

Really I would.

Someplace that had been in my family for centuries, no problem. Just the clothes on my back, I would run from the place I needed to vacate. Because of the good it would create.

 

[Commishsleer]

I'd argue reluctantly so - because they needed to keep the Federation happy and follow their stupid rules to get access to the planet. As I said previously, Ru'afo was quick enough to kill Dougherty and throw the switch on the collector thingy with people still down on the planet as soon as it looked like he wouldn't get what he wanted (and yet some people here would have us believe he's in the right).


"PICARD: A planet in Federation space.
DOUGHERTY: That's right. We have the planet. They have the technology."

Not "A Federation planet", "A planet in Federation space".


Three. Hundred. Years.


For one, Picard wouldn't have a clue who the hell Harry Mudd was.
For two, Harry Mudd is a Federation subject. Completely different scenario.


And if there were something in the film explaining unequivocally that the Federation actually owned the damn planet, I'd have a different stance - but then the whole point of the film would be moot.


What about planets that have been colonised by other worlds/powers? Would you have the same view if the Romulans tried to boot an officially sanctioned Federation colony off a particular planet that they couldn't demonstrate had been previously claimed by the Empire, simply because they wanted something on the planet?

Besides which, there's not much chance of sentient life evolving if the Son'a have their way, as harvesting the radiation renders the planet uninhabitable - actually, there's another point, there's life other than the Ba'ku down on the planet. Birds and fish etc. Remember the whole planet search in TWOK? Genesis would completely destroy all matter on the surface and reconfigure it. "There can't be so much as a microbe, or the show's off".


The UK has been invaded so many times I don't think it even matters anymore. Hell, I'm a quarter Belgian.

And that's me about done with this thread. This whole thing has left me aghast that there are people in 2018 (current year argument) that think the Son'a are not only in the right but that what they want to do is perfectly acceptable. Seriously people, have a fucking look at yourselves.

My parting questions to those people are:
Would your stance be the same if a comparable thing happened to a group of people now, here on Earth?
At what number of people does it become unacceptable?
Would you still feel the same if it were you being displaced?

Whoa
I don't think its clear from the movie whether the planet belongs to the Federation. I don't think it eben matters, Is the Federation an entity that is desperate enough to destroy planets - it should be better than that.
On TOS perhaps a more innocent time - they let the Halkans go even though they really really wanted the dilithium on that planet.
Picard has done .some calculations in his head - 300 years + 200 people whatever - they have a right to stay
The Federation has done the same calculations and decided they don't.

In episodes of TNG Picard has always supported the Federation line when dispossessing people from their own planets - in fact lectured people on performing their duty without question. Has lectured Data in particular when condemning pre-Warp planets to destruction.
What has happened to make Picard change his philosophy in following his Starfleet orders without question?

One of the problems in this movie is that's not clear. On the surface its just Picard's interest in a hot babe thats changed his mind. I know he says its the principle of the thing but where were his principles when he was forcibly moving the American Indians ?

 

[Tosk]

If my moving/relocation would thereby make available a health resource identical to the particles, I would move voluntarily.

Really I would.

Someplace that had been in my family for centuries, no problem. Just the clothes on my back, I would run from the place I needed to vacate. Because of the good it would create.

That's very nice of you. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.