Do you see the Maquis differently today?
- Thread starter Sisko_is_my_captain
- Start date
"The Prime Directive doesn't apply. These people are not indigenous to this planet. They were never meant to be immortal. We'll simply be restoring them to their natural evolution."
Restoring? Why do the Federation get to decide what is a legitimate progression for another species? Why is it okay to say that the Ba'ku don't deserve to be there, just so that the Federation can take the spoils for themselves?
If non-indigenous status means that the Ba'ku are not protected by the Prime Directive, then by what right do the Federation try to force them off their own planet? Did the Federation claim all it's worlds in this fashion? "Hmm, this planet seems nice. It's ours now, so scram!"
Restoring? Why do the Federation get to decide what is a legitimate progression for another species? Why is it okay to say that the Ba'ku don't deserve to be there, just so that the Federation can take the spoils for themselves?
If non-indigenous status means that the Ba'ku are not protected by the Prime Directive, then by what right do the Federation try to force them off their own planet? Did the Federation claim all it's worlds in this fashion? "Hmm, this planet seems nice. It's ours now, so scram!"
Yes. In that situation humans would be the Ba'ku and the new aliens would be the Federation. So by this comparison you're arguing that the Ba'ku have every right to claim the planet and that the Federation should shove off.
Humans wouldn't be the Baku because humans are indigenous to Earth (at least as far as we know), so I'm most certainly not making that argument. At best you "forgot" that point, and at worst you're arguing disingenuously.
Don't confuse an argument that the Baku shouldn't be allowed to keep the planet to themselves with an argument that they should be forcibly relocated, especially there's no evidence that a diplomatic approach was ever attempted.
Don't confuse an argument that the Baku shouldn't be allowed to keep the planet to themselves with an argument that they should be forcibly relocated, especially there's no evidence that a diplomatic approach was ever attempted.
They don't have to offer. Expecting them to undo their own choice of not living an interstellar lifestyle anymore just because their home turned out to have unexpected health benefits is fundamentally unreasonable. And yes, they exiled the people who tried to hold a coup d'etat in their society. Given the situation, that's literally the most lenient punishment they could possibly give that wouldn't risk the coup d'etat just happening all over again a few years later. But even if one wants to consider them assholes for exiling people, that still would not be any sort of evidence that they're unwilling to share the particles with people who ask nicely. And I'm also not asking anyone to assume they would share, but it is still fundamentally unreasonable to just assume that they wouldn't on the basis of zero evidence and then use that to argue that they somehow didn't deserve to live in peace on the planet they settled peacefully and legally. When there is no evidence either way what they would have done, the only reasonable response is to set that question aside as entirely unanswerable and leave it at that.
Realistically? The Federation going after these particles is like Saudi Arabia fighting to gain more oil. They were nothing more special than a million other things the Federation already has access to. They weren't even the first fountain of youth we'd seen in the franchise and they weren't even a permanent solution to anything (their effects all wore off as soon as you weren't around them anymore, including Geordi's eyesight going away again - something which wouldn't have happened had he accepted the standard Federation cure for his blindness which was already offered to him years earlier).
Off the top of my head, we've seen a town full of Orions on the Klingon homeworld - Klingons being some of the most territorial people in the universe - so the idea that enlightened humans would be fundamentally opposed to sharing a moon or something with someone peaceful seems ridiculous. We also saw the Bajoran govt. willing to hand over a whole moon to the *Romulans* of all people, although Romulan gamesmanship ruined that idea when they tried to mount massive weapons on it. And my understanding of the Rigellians from Memory Alpha is that the Rigel system is considered a bustling and crowded system with three united indigenous species and also lots of non-indigenous colonists, although that information is built up from tons of different minor references scattered throughout the franchise so I'm not sure where each individual piece of information comes from.
In any case, this still has nothing to do with the Baku. The Baku are the *only* people living in the entire Briar Patch.
Yes, Picard never says what he obviously ought to say because the movie is written poorly. That doesn't change the fact that there's a mountain of evidence from all over the rest of the franchise to show that the Admiral's claims here are total nonsense.
First of all, he acts like if the pre-warp side of the Prime Directive doesn't apply that therefore means he can do whatever he wants, but that is obviously idiotic as the TNG era repeatedly invoked the Prime Directive for post-warp societies, as well, (including, among others, the Romulans, who literally don't have any indigenous status anywhere in their own Empire because they all evolved on Vulcan). Episode after episode makes it abundantly clear that the Federation is not allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of any alien race, regardless of their indigenous status (the only significant exceptions seem to be people who are at war with the Federation or who have signed treaties with the Federation or requested help from the Federation). And there is absolutely no logical argument to be made that *kidnapping and forcibly relocating the entire population* somehow doesn't qualify as interfering with an alien race.
And secondly, his whole argument about non-indigenous status invalidating the Prime directive is flatly contradicted by the rest of the franchise. The Boraalans who Nikolai Rozhenko rescued ceased to be indigenous as soon as they were removed from their now uninhabitable world, yet Picard still did his damndest to continue to uphold the Prime Directive so it clearly didn't magically cease to apply to them. In 'New Eden' it's explicitly stated in the dialogue that the prime directive applies to any pre-warp civilization, even if it clearly isn't indigenous to the area. And, of course, every description of the Prime Directive (as it applies to primitive societies) ever describes the *difference in technological development* as the key question in whether or not the PD applies. And they also all describe the purpose of the PD as being to protect less advanced species from having their natural development in any way altered by more advanced species, a goal which would be totally undermined by allowing interference with a pre-warp species just because it isn't indigenous.
Picard doesn't have have to refute Doughty who is speaking nonsense, because he's speaking nonsense.
The Sonar are going to die before the natural effects of the rings can ease them back to a state of youth. They can only survive if the rings are frakked and strip mined, which was explained in the movie.
The Romulans and Reemans.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. The argument I quoted was about an alien species claiming Mars for themselves...
Humans are not indigenous to Mars, they found it. Like the Ba'ku did with their planet.
An alien race stumbles into the solar system and claims it for themselves, like the Federation did.
The Maquis were little more than a crude replica of the Cardassians they supposedly abhorred.
Where is that "popcorn" emoticon, anyway?
In what way? I'm thinking that if we're talking in mission or in methods it's surely not the former. Cardassians seem to be imperialists and the Maquis basically just wanted to be left alone.The Maquis were little more than a crude replica of the Cardassians they supposedly abhorred.
Some of it is horseshoe theory but I truly despise refractory heroes nearly as much as I despise the "what have I done?" trope of villainy where each side is simply a slight variant of the other; two sides of the same coin.
The original Maquis grew out of necessity (i.e., native settlers from TNG); sympathetic and well-meaning. Meanwhile, as their "ranks" grew, they were co-opted and corrupted (e.g., VOY) mostly by Federation expats (e.g., starfleet cadets, officers, etc.) who were frustrated with the Centrist philosophy of the Federation, increasingly binary in their thinking (e.g., VOY and DS9), inexcusably reckless and bloodthirsty (e.g., VOY - Dreadnaught, especially), and finally sliding into rancorous, indignant demagoguery (e.g., DS9).
In short, the Maquis found themselves corrupted by the corruptible (e.g., Federation expats, Starfleet AWOLs, etc.), growing and devolving into the corrupted themselves (i.e., Cardassians). Frankly, I'll give the Cardassians one nod over their contemporaries: very little effort to deny what they were or why they justified it; meanwhile, the Federation, Vulcans, Romulans, and even the Klingons, continually wrestled with their self-image in Trek canon, throwing themselves into moral pugilism at the first sign of hypocrisy--everyone except the Maquis.
As an antagonist in the story or plot, I deeply appreciate villains who remain unrepentant, and truly own their villainy (e.g., Borg), warts and all; however, it's the indifferent whom I can't stand--the ones who can't see/recognize/tell the difference between what they're doing and what's been done (e.g., Dukat, Macet, etc.)
The Maquis finally embraced their recalcitrance (e.g., VOY and DS9) in nearly any situation that provided a tactical and/or tangible befit at the cost of nearly everyone else--just like the Cardassians.
The original Maquis grew out of necessity (i.e., native settlers from TNG); sympathetic and well-meaning. Meanwhile, as their "ranks" grew, they were co-opted and corrupted (e.g., VOY) mostly by Federation expats (e.g., starfleet cadets, officers, etc.) who were frustrated with the Centrist philosophy of the Federation, increasingly binary in their thinking (e.g., VOY and DS9), inexcusably reckless and bloodthirsty (e.g., VOY - Dreadnaught, especially), and finally sliding into rancorous, indignant demagoguery (e.g., DS9).
In short, the Maquis found themselves corrupted by the corruptible (e.g., Federation expats, Starfleet AWOLs, etc.), growing and devolving into the corrupted themselves (i.e., Cardassians). Frankly, I'll give the Cardassians one nod over their contemporaries: very little effort to deny what they were or why they justified it; meanwhile, the Federation, Vulcans, Romulans, and even the Klingons, continually wrestled with their self-image in Trek canon, throwing themselves into moral pugilism at the first sign of hypocrisy--everyone except the Maquis.
As an antagonist in the story or plot, I deeply appreciate villains who remain unrepentant, and truly own their villainy (e.g., Borg), warts and all; however, it's the indifferent whom I can't stand--the ones who can't see/recognize/tell the difference between what they're doing and what's been done (e.g., Dukat, Macet, etc.)
The Maquis finally embraced their recalcitrance (e.g., VOY and DS9) in nearly any situation that provided a tactical and/or tangible befit at the cost of nearly everyone else--just like the Cardassians.
I would have been curious to see how our perceptions of the Maquis might have evolved if we'd seen more Cal Hudson types and fewer Eddington types.
Which is to say, while Eddington was a great villain for getting under Sisko's skin, I would have liked more of a sense that there were other Maquis out there who didn't embrace...or perhaps even opposed...his radicalism.
Was there even room for Cal Hudson's more moderate views in the face of Eddington's boldness? Is it possible that Eddington came to view Hudson's relative passivity as an obstacle to securing Maquis goals? Perhaps even to the point where he would arrange for Hudson to disappear?
Which is to say, while Eddington was a great villain for getting under Sisko's skin, I would have liked more of a sense that there were other Maquis out there who didn't embrace...or perhaps even opposed...his radicalism.
Was there even room for Cal Hudson's more moderate views in the face of Eddington's boldness? Is it possible that Eddington came to view Hudson's relative passivity as an obstacle to securing Maquis goals? Perhaps even to the point where he would arrange for Hudson to disappear?
My take on the Maquis is that they're always having a different conversation with the Federation than the Federation is having with them. I also take in the context of Deep Space Nine that the Federation isn't automatically right and that the show is broadly supportive of the Bajoran Resistance while simultaneously quite aware that they engaged in terrorism. The Bajoran Resistance were heroic freedom fighters and, yes, did occasionally blow up people who folded shirts and other war crimes.
War is ugly in Deep Space Nine and maybe Starfleet is so used to dealing with good faith actors that they forget just how ugly it can get. Part of what was established about the Maquis in TNG (and the Bajoran Resistance as well) is the fact that the Cardassians are bad faith actors. The Federation lives up to its treaties and promises with 100% certainty while the Cardassians constantly break every promise they make.
I feel that's something that in 2020 feels appropriate for the political discourse regarding certain political factions but doesn't really change my opinion.
The Maquis left the Federation to live on planets that they'd been allowed to live on by the Cardassians and fought a guerilla war against them when the Cardassians broke their word. This is, officially, not the Federation's problem anymore. However, the Federation considers them criminals for their activities and attempts to stop them. All the while as the Cardassians are supplying their own colonists with weapons and supplies.
Because the word of fascists is worthless.
The Federation has, unwittingly, taken a side in a conflict just by trying not to take a side. They don't recognize the Maquis as a nation but the nation exists whether its on paper or not. It reminds me of groups in Syria and other places where the United States' presence changes the dynamic just by its existence.
I think the ending of the Maquis also is brutal and could have used some more analysis as we only really get it dealt with in a few places. Because the Maquis colonies are exterminated in the end. Had Bajor been occupied, the Dominion would have killed everyone on Bajor and said, "There, the planet is yours." It's not a refutation of the Maquis but its an exceptionally dark end and shows just what sort of people the Federation was dealing with.
And really, the Federation is the one who brought the Dominion not the other way around. Sisko says the Maquis pushed the Cardassians too far but it was the Federation poking the Gamma Quadrant that brought about the invasion.
War is ugly in Deep Space Nine and maybe Starfleet is so used to dealing with good faith actors that they forget just how ugly it can get. Part of what was established about the Maquis in TNG (and the Bajoran Resistance as well) is the fact that the Cardassians are bad faith actors. The Federation lives up to its treaties and promises with 100% certainty while the Cardassians constantly break every promise they make.
I feel that's something that in 2020 feels appropriate for the political discourse regarding certain political factions but doesn't really change my opinion.
The Maquis left the Federation to live on planets that they'd been allowed to live on by the Cardassians and fought a guerilla war against them when the Cardassians broke their word. This is, officially, not the Federation's problem anymore. However, the Federation considers them criminals for their activities and attempts to stop them. All the while as the Cardassians are supplying their own colonists with weapons and supplies.
Because the word of fascists is worthless.
The Federation has, unwittingly, taken a side in a conflict just by trying not to take a side. They don't recognize the Maquis as a nation but the nation exists whether its on paper or not. It reminds me of groups in Syria and other places where the United States' presence changes the dynamic just by its existence.
I think the ending of the Maquis also is brutal and could have used some more analysis as we only really get it dealt with in a few places. Because the Maquis colonies are exterminated in the end. Had Bajor been occupied, the Dominion would have killed everyone on Bajor and said, "There, the planet is yours." It's not a refutation of the Maquis but its an exceptionally dark end and shows just what sort of people the Federation was dealing with.
And really, the Federation is the one who brought the Dominion not the other way around. Sisko says the Maquis pushed the Cardassians too far but it was the Federation poking the Gamma Quadrant that brought about the invasion.
The seams were coming apart at that time between the writers who wanted to do something big and different versus the networks who wanted "just another Star Trek show." The video essay on Berman is fascinating in just how there were just fundamental disagreements about what they wanted to do and could do within the confines of the franchise. It ended up applying to ENT too where the premise took a backseat to being someone just trying to do TNG 3.0.
The backstory about the Native American "expert" they hired to write Chakotay is one of the uglier chapters of Star Trek. Not so much that they got taken, though that was bad, but that the writers and staff were so racist they didn't realize what utter nonsense he was doing.
I'm going to avoid RL examples and stick with post-scarcity 24th century. The people who colonize planets do so in order to have something to do. They work because they want to "improve themselves" as Picard said and Jake Sisko was made fun of by Nog. You settle Planet Alpha-Alpha Gamma because you want to have a town that's named after you and help do something productive so that in 200 years, a planet is a thriving colony and you built that. You probably hold Earthlings in justified (?) contempt for being a bunch of people who do nothing with their lives.
Then Starfleet shows up and all the 10-20 years of work you've put in colonizing a place is demolished and you're told it was for nothing. You're moved back to Earth. Maybe your neighbors are moved to Mars. All you've done is gone and every bond you've made is scattered.
Oh and it's because the Space Nazis get your world. Maybe you'd want to say, "No."
The Federation greatly misjudged the situation with the Cardassians and we saw how it all ended up with the Dominion War. The Federation believed that they could exert economic and political pressure to force them to come to peaceful terms but every time we see them, they're breaking a treaty or plotting evil. Because they're based on the Nazis. The Federation did successfully negotiate the surrender of Bajor and that's good but the Maquis got a bum deal.
But what I don't get is why the Federation thinks its their job to go after the Maquis. The Maquis have given up their Federation citizenship.
They are not the UPF's problem anymore.
Last edited:
YMMV, but it's interesting to ponder these two points in the context of the Briar Patch also being known as Klach D'kel Brakt, an area which is claimed by both the Klingons and the Cardassians and the site of a battle in the 2270s.
That's not accurate. The Klach D'Kel Brakt (sp?) is referenced as the Klingon name for the region and in the same episode it's mentioned that the Klingons once fought a battle against the Romulans in or near the area. It's never mentioned anywhere that any alien empire (Klingon, Romulan or Cardassian) ever had any claim on the area.
Similar threads
