Star Trek and Colonialism...

And a speech

 

Why is that bad?

Funny —but— it’s the same rule. Why wouldn’t Picard interject for a society no longer in charge of its own destiny?

Would the principle be they did it to themselves, so they deserve it? Did they do it to themselves? Also, I can’t imagine all of them did; should everyone suffer for the mistakes of a few? And aren’t we all allowed to make mistakes and pray we live to regret them, so we might change?

“Mr. Worf, fiah.”

 

Depends on your definition of Colonialism.

The one of ongoing in and displacing others for your side. Or finding a place with no sentient or intelligent life and "colonize" it.

Federation is usually the latter, only setting up in uninhabited or someplace were invited.

Now klingons, romulans, there the former, they don't care if someones there. If they want the planet for whatever reason, they go in. And displace/kill/inslave etc. The population.

So I'd rather the federation 98% peaceful route.

 

If I recall correctly, Kirk only decides to break the Prime Directive in "The Apple" after Vaal has killed members of the Enterprise crew and is threatening the ship.

Beyond that, the explicit wording of the Prime Directive is the protection of a culture's "natural development."

Is an entire species of humanoids being locked into a cultural stasis as slaves to a supercomputer considered the natural evolution of a culture?

 

Yes, you are claiming land that is not yours and you are going to exploit it resources. Do not worry earth has created a doctrine during the age of discovery and later codified in United States law.. The Doctrine of Discovery... We earth are ready to colonize the stars... It was used to take Indigenous lands...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine

The doctrine of discovery was promulgated by European monarchies in order to legitimize the colonization of lands outside of Europe. Between the mid-fifteenth century and the mid-twentieth century, this idea allowed European entities to seize lands inhabited by indigenous peoples under the guise of "discovering new land".[3] In 1494, the Treaty of Tordesillas declared that only non-Christian lands could be colonized under the Doctrine of Discovery. In 1792, U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson claimed that this European Doctrine of Discovery was international law which was applicable to the new US government as well.[4] The Doctrine and its legacy continue to influence American imperialism and treatment of indigenous peoples.

It not ours so it is colonialism... so why let it go to waste...

https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2018/06/14/to-boldly-go-adventure-and-empire-in-star-trek/

Yes... Empires send people out search for cross cultures and this is how the Federation Imperium does its controlling...

While lack of overt military imperialism in Star Trek might presume to limit the connection with imperial practices, it is important to note the myriad modes of imperial expansion discussed by historians of empire. These include legal, political, religious, economic, scientific, and technological—another key place of connection for Star Trek.

 

Because Star Trek isn't about the military.

Guess I just killed this thread, didn't I?

 

An unclaimed, uninhabited world isn't anyone else's either. The Federation colonizing an uninhabited planet is NOTHING like Eurpoean colonialism displacing indigenous inhabitants.

Beyond that, aren't you ascribing human values of property, possession, and culture to alien worlds and cultures that may not have the same principles? Who are you to tell the Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites, etc., that the Federation membership that they agreed to is a form of cultural imperialism? That in itself would be exactly what you've accused Kirk and the Federation of doing; forcing your values onto another culture's decision making.

 

So.. By your definition..

Native Americans were imperialist bastards when they walked over the land bridge in Alaska and moved into North America .. And colonized the continent and islands of this hemisphere..

Also the Aborigines were also imperialist colonizing bastards when they walked to Australia 40,000 years ago..

Give me a break.. As my post earlier said.. No humans were there.. They didn't displace or enslave or anything any other humans.

European colonizers? Oh 100% bastards.. But as said.. Not the federation way. unless they REALLY need something on said planet.. As I said 98% right.

 

You still haven’t defined what’s morally superior about staying in one place. Heck I’ll do you one better. We don’t need to be here at all. I think we should all commit collective suicide. No rock should have to bear our weight ever again.

Too much? Okay, we can genetically-engineer a single immortal human that is the best of all our essences and who doesn’t need to breathe, and they can float between the galaxies until the universe decides to end.

“…These include legal, political, religious, economic, scientific, and technological…”

There are valid arguments against the strong-arming tactics of various forms of imperialism, but let’s be careful to parse them out without, as in my absurd suggestions above, taking them beyond reason. My ancestors were Greeks; do only they/I get to have democracy? Which cave-person invented fire or the wheel; do only their descendants get to use them? More realistically, is introducing developing peoples to the concept of water free of deadly microorganisms scientific imperialism? Mosquito nets and showing people how to wash their hands have saved more lives than airbags, seatbelts, and looking both ways before you cross the street combined, by a lot; is it imperialism to share these things?

 

I don't think spreading out and taking up unused territory (that belongs to no-one else) is morally problematic in itself. All lifeforms do this when given the chance.

It only becomes a problem when you have to displace /dominate/ marginalize other species for that. (Exactly what species fall under that may still be subject to discussion: should they be sentient? Sapient?)

 

Which Rule of Acquisition says colonialism is bad? Asking for a friend.

 

The lack of pre-existing sapient beings on their colony sites is one huge difference...

Please. After just inventing warp drive a society is almost certainly still centuries away from being a threat to the Federation.

If this is actually your view of the Federation and Starfleet and you're not just trolling, why in the world do you even like Star Trek?

 

True. It can be argued that Kirk acted in self defense. My issue is more that he creates a mess, and it's never known if anyone deals with it, or if the hapless followers of Vaal are left to their own devices and almost certainly go extinct.

The dark side of the Prime Directive, indeed.

A world without sentient life, there's nothing wrong with colonizing.

There was a book awhile ago where a corporation owned a given planet, but lost their exploitation rights when a native species was shown to be sapient. The corporation seriously took a bath on their investment.

 

Was the colony on LV-426, with its big, environmentally-altering nuclear powered atmosphere processors, an exercise in colonialism? Or were the xenomorphs the colonialists for rudely destroying the human settlers and taking over Hadley's Hope?

 

the prime directive is as much a plot device as is the the transporter malfunction

no way - laforge would have found a way to technobabble the problem out of existance

 

Or warp speed?

 

DC Comics issues #43-45 (first run) deals with the fallout. Called “The Return of the Serpent”.

 

Only problems I can think of are..
Find a planet, no higher intelligence there... They colonize.
However, if you visited Earth say 1 million years ago, Earth would be prime real estate for a colony .. But we eventually developed. So a colony may not allow a future species to be created.

Another is say we get FTL drive, but we find that all habitable planets around us within say 10 light years are already colonized by others, leaving us nothing.

 

Is there any evidence that the xenomorphs were native to the planet? The humans were colonists and I assume they expected LV-426 to be devoid of life (they didn't realize they were sent there with ulterior motives).

The xenomorphs don't appear to have a society per se (is there ever any evidence of one?), so it's hard for me to believe that they would intentionally colonize so much as infest.

 

This is the key bit, and once Vaal attacks the ship it has entered into an interstellar conflict, thus it's no longer an internal matter.

He's leaving someone behind to make sure they don't all die.

That's a good point, if this situation was imposed on them by an outside entity then the Prime Directive doesn't apply at all. Since the scans don't turn up any indication of a fallen advanced society I think it's likely that Vaal was installed by an alien civilization. The people on the planet might not even be native, deposited there just to be feeders. Since Vaal has planet-wide environmental controls (the poles are 76 degrees just like everywhere else) it's possible it's a terraforming device abandoned by some other long gone civilization. I'm curious just how Eden-like Gamma Trianguli Six really is once the natural weather patterns reassert themselves. I think I'm going to start a new thread on this.