Eddington's vitriolic assessment of The Federation

Frankly, I agree with Eddington's assessment of the Federation. But since the writers were determined to portray him as a villain, I guess they had to find a way to make his assessment less meaningful with bad behavior. One of the problems I have with the Trek franchise is that it rarely allowed the Federation or Starfleet to pay the consequences for their bad or morally questionable decisions and behavior. The franchise's writers would allow them to happen and then either forget about them or focus on the problems or flaws of other races.

 

And I get all giddy when I get to shoot that theory full of holes.

It's win-win!

 

Eddington was an interesting figure. Full of shit? Yes. Exaggerated self-importance? Yes. Unsympathetic? Yes.

But also a highly capable man that outsmarted Sisko several times, drove Sisko to the point that he took questionable actions and even Starfleet though it safer to take him off the case, and also a man that was willing to die covering for others when his time came.

 

I would have liked to see an explanation as to why Eddington turned traitor in the first place. When Sisko asked, Eddington pointedly refused to explain...

 

^In which episode is that scene? I'd like to rewatch it.

 

For the Cause, maybe?

Spoiler: Relevant speech

 

Sisko basically says that Eddington sees himself as the hero of a lost cause and joined the Maquis out of a romantic sense of adventure.

And even Sisko is left with a sense of confusion because Eddington's last act was to rescue colonists by tricking Sisko into believing he was a villain. Just like Eddington wanted to believe Sisko was the bad guy hunting him, the good guy, Sisko bought Eddington's claim about doomsday weapons because he wanted to paint Eddington as the bad guy.

So I believe Eddington got the last laugh.

 

Those flags don't represent whether a world is a Federation member or not. Those are simply the worlds that the cadets of this particular Academy class are from.

 

To be clear, "Accession" stated that caste-based discrimination goes against the Federation Charter. It's not really reasonable to assume that this is the only topic that the Federation Charter deals with. Charters like this are comprised of dozens of articles and many chapters, with various obligations for its members.

Kor

 

Eddington's motivation for joining the Maquis was at least understandable. Chakotay, Sisko's pal whose name I forget, Ro Laren... they all had their reasons.

Contrastingly, his statement comparing the Federation to the Borg was a bunch of BS. He obviously had no actual experience with the Borg, and the way they took control of people and devoured their free will. It's not even a comparison.

 

Eddington's comparison with the Borg was silly. The U.F.P. does not force planets into it's membership, and the Borg also assimilate on an individual level, not a democratic one.

If I be a member of a planet that votes to join the U.F.P., but I be personally against it, then it is my government who forces me, by the principle of majority rule, or not. — The U.F.P. in many cases, despite the Borg being called collectivist, is actually quite collectivist in it's dogmata. In particular it's “first contact” rules which allow for contact with a “civilization” that has achieved f.t.l., but no definition of what a “civilization” may be, and an assumption that all species have such a thing. Some Vulcans landed on Earth and exposed humans to the knowledge of interstellar life because one man had achieved f.t.l. capacity in a world without a central government. One can debate such actions, if supposedly it be such a grave sin to expose a species to that knowledge which has no such capacity.

That being said, Sisko's reaction was even more comical. He first asked Eddington why he did it, and when he received an answer he said he did not care. — A man so very often does not care for the answer he does not like, it seems.

And just as in the real world, such charters are useless show and air, for the U.F.P. itself has a caste-based discrimination system based on genetic engineering and pœnalizes it's citizens for how they were born, or altered after their birth without their consent

Really, the U.F.P. is no different from real life countries, international agreements, and charters in how much of the idealism exists not to protect anyone's rights, but for politicians and citizens to pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are, and D.S.9. did expose some of that.

 

So how does conalizing a planet work?
If fed citizens go to planet X to form a colony, does it automatically become a federation planet? Protectorate status maybe? If a private group goes out without say Federation colony movers help, are they still citizens?

At what point does it become its own planet with its own government with rule over the solar system? Say like territorial waters?

Were the border colonys independent but settled by citizens? .

Federation sold them out probably without even asking this planets opinion.. There rightfully pissed

Also. If the Admiral is saying there still citizens, then they have an obligation to Protect said citizens from harm. Not just tell them to behave.

 

To be fair, that is the nature of the beast. The Federation stated that they couldn't protect the citizens on the planets that were now in Cardassian territory and the best way to protect them would be to evacuate them. That they would no longer be enforcing any territorial claim on the lost planets.

And the Maquis decided to stay and fight without the Federation's approval.

It has happened all the time in real life.

DS9 just made it so that there was no magical diplomatic or science-based solution so everyone wins.

 

@valkyrie013 @Charles Phipps It is bizarre enough that they would leave the comforts of an already populated planet such as earth to live there. Many speak of how poor the living conditions are there.

It would be as strange as that a man were to pack up from Copenhagen, to go live in the middle of the Sahara. — Surely no one would do so?

 

I mean, I absolutely would not live on Earth and find the very idea inexplicable. Why would I want to live on a planet where nothing I do matters? I would be on the first colonial transport outward. At least I like to think so. The colonists are people who want to ACCOMPLISH something with their lives versus being cared for pets.

My father was a millionaire but did his best to instill in his children that your value was what you did and that work was an objective good.

On a colony, you're laying the groundwork for a whole new civilization. Who wouldn't want to be part of that?

 

So are you right now in the Sahara or Antarctica building new villages, or are you rather posting this message from the comfort of modern civilization?

 

I've spent years building houses in poorer places and also done work abroad for charities. I also do have to work to survive in the United States. If I didn't, I'd absolutely be going someplace where I need to work.

Or is this supposed to be a "bazinga, I've got you" moment?

 

"Work as a virtue" is a very United States mentality...for myriad reasons. I imagine the overwhelming majority of those people hard at work yet away from home would gladly spend more time with their families and/or pursuing passions/hobbies if the opportunities to reduce the amount of necessary work presented themselves.

 

But that is not what I asked.
What I asked is whether you built a new village from scratch where no human civilization yet existed, which is what they are doing, not whether you are helping others who are already living there, which, as you phrase it is also a profession that commands financial compensation.

They left civilization to build a new existence in the wildernis where o man has threaded before.

 

I'm saying that if its a choice between living a life of luxury with no purpose and you can go build a new life, yes, that is very appealing.

A lot of people don't follow big dreams because they can't afford it in our world.