• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Marqi did no wrong change my mind

The larger question is is someone's home worth a war?

I mean that question involves a lot of variables.

And I do think that the Marquis were not in the same situation as people today who are displaced by conflicts or territorial changes.
I'm not saying losing your home wouldn't suck for a person in the 24th century Federation. But a lot of the pain and disadvantages faced by modern and historical refugees would just not be present in a post-scarcity society like the Federation. Not only would they get new land, but their houses and such could be easily replaced. They wouldn't have to do with less or exist in disenfranchised situations where they are distrusted and discriminated against by those around them.
Yes, a guy displaced from one of those planets might lose the exact house his parents built and might never be able again to go that specific river where he had his first kiss or stuff like that. But if he choses to relocate into Federation space he can have a new house very similar to the one he lost and he could even easily relocate to a new river, since with the abundance of inhabitable planets land doesn't seem to be a scarce resource anymore either.

That's why I find it difficult to relate the Marquis to any real life situation, since if they only chose differently, they would have had advantages any real life displaced person could only dream of.
 
Yep they are called empires

There is never going to be one-hundred percent approval, no matter the term given to the governing body.

That's why I find it difficult to relate the Marquis to any real life situation, since if they only chose differently, they would have had advantages any real life displaced person could only dream of.

Right. Regardless of where they reside, their habitation, sustenance, medical attention, education, et cetera, is always guaranteed.
 
I mean that question involves a lot of variables.

And I do think that the Marquis were not in the same situation as people today who are displaced by conflicts or territorial changes.
I'm not saying losing your home wouldn't suck for a person in the 24th century Federation. But a lot of the pain and disadvantages faced by modern and historical refugees would just not be present in a post-scarcity society like the Federation. Not only would they get new land, but their houses and such could be easily replaced. They wouldn't have to do with less or exist in disenfranchised situations where they are distrusted and discriminated against by those around them.
Yes, a guy displaced from one of those planets might lose the exact house his parents built and might never be able again to go that specific river where he had his first kiss or stuff like that. But if he choses to relocate into Federation space he can have a new house very similar to the one he lost and he could even easily relocate to a new river, since with the abundance of inhabitable planets land doesn't seem to be a scarce resource anymore either.

That's why I find it difficult to relate the Marquis to any real life situation, since if they only chose differently, they would have had advantages any real life displaced person could only dream of.
Thank you.

You made my point for me very well.
 
To me the Maquis are more like the 'pioneer' invaders of the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia. Imagine if the wars between the Europeans and indigenous peoples resulted in a stalemate. The Europeans and indigenous folk agree to swap territory, the European colonisers refuse to be relocated but then start a war with the indigenous folks. Should they be entitled to sympathy, just because the Europeans are from a more 'democratic' culture, in comparison?
 
Last edited:
The Trek writers used the Bajorans as an allegory for real life displaced persons, dare I say Palestinians, Armenians?
If they were trying to do the same with The Maquis, they failed.
 
Last edited:
The Trek writers used the Bajorans as an allegory for real life displaced persons, dare I say Palestinians, Armenians? If they were trying to do the same with The Maquis, they failed.

Initially, they were likened to Palestinians; on DS9, they adopted traits of the Jews. Either way, they are a bit of a cultural mélange...many downtrodden people viewed through the lens of science-fiction.
 
To me the Maquis are more like the 'pioneer' invaders of the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia. Imagine if the wars between the Europeans and indigenous peoples resulted in a stalemate. The Europeans and indigenous folk agree to swap territory, the European colonisers refuse to be relocated but then start a war with the indigenous folks. Should they be entitled to sympathy, just because the Europeans are from a more 'democratic' culture, in comparison?
Perhaps that was the intent but it never landed right. The Maquis came across as entitled and spoiled, closer to Dr. Servin and his ilk in TOS, than any rear world analogue. It's one thing to say real world displacement is a problem because there is a shortage of resources and places to help people at times. In Star Trek that is not the case. The Maquis said "screw the treaty! We're staying here" even after being offered a new place to live. This isn't even like the Baku (another thin case but the planet was unique at least). Their planet offered them something unique. But the Maquis? Just irreverent and stubborn.

They are not a new nation, they are not a sovereign power. Just a group of colonists who feel that their needs are the only ones that matter.

In Star Trek that doesn't wash at all.
 
Perhaps that was the intent but it never landed right. The Maquis came across as entitled and spoiled, closer to Dr. Servin and his ilk in TOS, than any rear world analogue. It's one thing to say real world displacement is a problem because there is a shortage of resources and places to help people at times. In Star Trek that is not the case. The Maquis said "screw the treaty! We're staying here" even after being offered a new place to live. This isn't even like the Baku (another thin case but the planet was unique at least). Their planet offered them something unique. But the Maquis? Just irreverent and stubborn.

They are not a new nation, they are not a sovereign power. Just a group of colonists who feel that their needs are the only ones that matter.

In Star Trek that doesn't wash at all.

Lets say each of those colonies had two industrial replicators?

(Or that Farming Replicators are the size of a barn, while industrial replicators are the size of an 8 story building?)

Maybe not new ones.

And that's how they farm.

They push button, and a giant machine the size of an office block creates millions of tons of fresh fertile soil and billions of healthy seeds that will grow anywhere.

Of course, they could just use the old replicators to build new replicators.

But if the Federation took their (farming) replicators, then it would have been the Cardassians job to resupply new cardassian (Farming) replicators to the human farmers.

But there were already crops in the field.

Were the Cardassians expected to eat human food for a year, after these human crops were harvested?

A year later, were the human farmers expected to grow Cardassian food for their Cardassian "clientele"?

Hot take...

A billion billion tons of Human food hit the Cardassian markets, and not a single %ucker would touch it. Could not give it away.

Do the colony farms actually service the homeworld, or am I thinking of an old world model?
 
And I do think that the Marquis were not in the same situation as people today who are displaced by conflicts or territorial changes.

"Maquis."
Named after the French underground organization in WWII:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquis_(World_War_II)

"Marquis" is a noble title, ranking below a Duke, but above an Earl.

"Marquee" is a sign over a theater.

"Marqi" seems to be a brand name for various hotels and facial care devices, according to Google.

"Markie Mark" was a terrible white rapper who is now a terrible actor.

"Markie Post" was a beautiful TV actress, known for Night Court.

"Mark me!" is what Hamlet's father's ghost told him.
 
Last edited:
Is this a thing?

1. You can make almost anything small enough to fit inside a replicator, like replicator parts, inside a replicator, so long as you have a design pattern, or the pattern is not forbotten. Which is why a nogoodnick can't replicate phasers or real chocolate at the replimat. The ship on Prodigy has a replicator who's only job is to replicate new shuttles... Are shuttles disposable on that show? Is it preferable to build a new shuttle for every mission, rather than keeping up on maintenance and cleaning the bugger? It was not eactly clear. But I assumed that if the Maquis Colonies had larger replicators, they would be of the style and from the time, that the colonists left Earth which could have been 2 hundred years ago.

2. Replicated food, and other replicated matter can be manifested on the holodeck. Obviously you can't replicate with holo-emitters, so the holodeck is also a giant replicator you can walk inside of.

3. A parabolic dish was used to turn the Doctor into an 80 foot tall giant. Similar tech. Replicator + parabolic dish = Replicated stuff bigger than the original replicator.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top