Eddington's vitriolic assessment of The Federation
- Thread starter Ragitsu
- Start date
My best friend in college bought land in the woods to move to and lived effectively "off the grid" for a decade. No internet, a cellphone only for emergencies, and paying in cash for groceries from nearby.
Some people have different needs.
Which still does not compare to people going somewhere where not even a grocery story exists, to build one themselves.
I think it would be like a thousand times easier for Federation citizens but I also don't think you believe anyone would leave comfort for something hard but rewarding.
I said so at the start that I found it unlikely that a man would pack up from Copenhagen to live in the middle of the Sahara, yes.
The examples you gave are very much not comparable to that. — I believe it unlikely, because it simply does not happen.
While it is true that in the case of the colonists they obviously have superior technology to build their new life, they are also leaving superior comforts behind. From what I am to believe, Earth is a post-scarcity society with no disease, poverty, hunger, and war, and they left that behind to somehow go live in the middle of a war zone and fight for their lives, for what reason exactly?
The reason is obviously for the plot to create the maquis, further building upon D.S.9.'s idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I can believe easily enough that people would feel a need to "escape from civilization".
Why they'd settle in a contested area of space between two powers engaged in hostilities is beyond me though. Or rather, what's beyond me is why they'd choose to continue to live there once they knew (and perhaps had received explicit evidence) of just how much danger they were in.
"These are our homes!" makes so little sense to me in a universe where there's plenty of other places to live that aren't in danger of being bombed without any warning.
Just yesterday I was at the Urgent Care and a woman came in claiming she had sutures that she feared might be infected and that were due to be removed in any case. The woman at the front desk informed her that UC could handle the suture removal (though she recommended that the woman see whomever had put the sutures in to begin with) but that it would be $130 that wouldn't be covered by insurance (IDK why). The woman went into a rant, claiming that she could go to the ER for free but didn't have the time, and that $130 was outrageous.
I realize that for some people $130 is a huge deal (I'm privileged enough that it's not a huge deal for me), but we're talking about a possible infection? It seems as though her priorities aren't quite in perspective, and even if they are, it's not the woman at the front desk who sets the policy, so ranting at her won't help anything.
Why they'd settle in a contested area of space between two powers engaged in hostilities is beyond me though. Or rather, what's beyond me is why they'd choose to continue to live there once they knew (and perhaps had received explicit evidence) of just how much danger they were in.
"These are our homes!" makes so little sense to me in a universe where there's plenty of other places to live that aren't in danger of being bombed without any warning.
Just yesterday I was at the Urgent Care and a woman came in claiming she had sutures that she feared might be infected and that were due to be removed in any case. The woman at the front desk informed her that UC could handle the suture removal (though she recommended that the woman see whomever had put the sutures in to begin with) but that it would be $130 that wouldn't be covered by insurance (IDK why). The woman went into a rant, claiming that she could go to the ER for free but didn't have the time, and that $130 was outrageous.
I realize that for some people $130 is a huge deal (I'm privileged enough that it's not a huge deal for me), but we're talking about a possible infection? It seems as though her priorities aren't quite in perspective, and even if they are, it's not the woman at the front desk who sets the policy, so ranting at her won't help anything.
If they settled there yesterday or three months ago, then yes.
If they have been there for two, three generations, improving the land and environment, it might be a slightly different matter. They'd have to start all over again on a new planet.
Eddington was a contrarian for his own sake. Maybe he was spoiled growing up in a society that excelled at making things better. When his own corner of the universe couldn’t be made better, he met reality with delusion and, well, naturally got cause and effect. All the Maquis dead. Including, perhaps, Ro Laren, Cal Hudson, and Thomas Riker — no rescue for him either. They trusted him with leadership and he did let them down. I guess one of them should have gone off about he’s worse than both the Federation and the Borg.
This is what the gods did to him for their own daddy issues with The Great Bird.
This is what the gods did to him for their own daddy issues with The Great Bird.
Welcome to customer service nightmares. People who don't set policies but must inform and enforce them regardless. No, it won't help anything. Doesn't stop people from ranting about it. I spent 10 years as a retail manager and still know the familiar pain.
I think it's pretty clear that's what he meant.
...The Federation is worse than The Borg?
At least they'd still be alive.
Besides, they could return to the Federation and not need to start much of anything all over again.
If you (the Maquis) want to be hard-headed, by all means be hard-headed...but at least own that you're being hard-headed and that you do have options that you could choose to exercise at any time. The Federation didn't abandon you; you opted out.
Yes, that's perhaps what ratio would say.
But suppose your family has lived in Alaska for three generations, your family has built up an enterprise through decades of hard work there, your parents and grandparents are buried in that soil, and you love the lands, cold as the climate may be. Then Putin starts insisting Russia has the older rights to the region, and that the 1867 purchase was never valid to begin with. Somehow, the USA gives in to avoid an ugly conflict and hands over jurisdiction of the region to Putin (very unlikely, but that's not the point). You as a USA citizen are recommended to relocate and a fund is initiated to help you rebuild your life in another region.
I don't know about you, but I would probably feel abandoned by the USA; auxiliary fund or not.
But suppose your family has lived in Alaska for three generations, your family has built up an enterprise through decades of hard work there, your parents and grandparents are buried in that soil, and you love the lands, cold as the climate may be. Then Putin starts insisting Russia has the older rights to the region, and that the 1867 purchase was never valid to begin with. Somehow, the USA gives in to avoid an ugly conflict and hands over jurisdiction of the region to Putin (very unlikely, but that's not the point). You as a USA citizen are recommended to relocate and a fund is initiated to help you rebuild your life in another region.
I don't know about you, but I would probably feel abandoned by the USA; auxiliary fund or not.
As we see with Siko, 900 million people died in the Dominion War because he was SO selfish that he wouldn't accept Dominion rule.
The Maquis wouldn't accept Cardassian rule.
Vs. how many would have died under Dominion rule? Or ever been born? Or you know, been slaves for the next 10,000 years of Dominion rule? I love the smell of Quickening in the mornin’, don’t you?
The settlers knew when they settled there that it was disputed space. And they had every opportunity and Federation assistance to resettle elsewhere. If they didn’t take it, it’s on them.
I mean, if your argument is purely Utilitarian, that means that the ideal universe is the one where Sisko disappeared into a subspace anomoly. That one had no Dominion War or conquest whatsoever.
Eddington and company fought against an evil occupying force and they lost.
Are we blaming them for being losers? If so, we're no better than the Dominion. I'm sorry they lost not that they fought.
Part of what's notable is that "Blaze of Glory" basically says that Sisko WAS wrong about Eddington and that, whatever Sisko thought about the man, he had the courage of his beliefs and was neither a hypocrite nor a fool. Sisko never would have fallen for Eddington's ruse if not for the fact he WANTED to believe Eddington was the villain.
The Dominion would have found its way to the AQ and done its thing. Sisko wasn’t the problem.
They more than lost though, they became extinct. But fine, knock yourself out, but don’t blame others for your actions.
Yes we bloody well are. I’m not blaming them for losing a fight; I’m blaming them for waging one that didn’t need to be fought. But say I were doing both, I’m not launching bio weapons at my enemies or genociding former allies. That is what the Dominion is, and false equivalences between it, or the Borg, and the Federation are sloppy, inaccurate, immoral, and, yes, wrong.
His beliefs were wrong. It doesn’t matter that he genuinely believed them, or that he was earnest and clever about it. He didn’t need to get his people and himself killed. I don’t think he was weak or unintelligent; but he was playing his games with people’s lives.
I don’t remember the specifics, but Sisko was a whole ‘mother mess, poising planets and other nonsense that should have gotten him dishonorable discharged and god knows what else. You don’t outwit an anti-nuke terrorist by blowing up a nuke.
I think it all dates back to whether you believe "For the Uniform" where Sisko believes the Cardassians will negotiate fairly after having been caught.
If you do, then the Maquis was unnecessary.
If you don't, then Sisko was as Kira said, "More naive than I thought."
