What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Tallguy]

The Maquis are like the old time European colonists/pioneers/invaders who were attacked by the indigneous peoples, but want their former nation states to protect 'their land'.

Which was great when it was formerly American Indigenous who were being ousted.

And unless you're talking about some historical incident I'm not aware of (there are lots, of course) when colonists were asking for help it was not their "former" nation it was their current ones.

Well I think they were troublemakers. Space is vast, UFP resources are not scarce. Go move away from the Cardassian area, somewhere else.

IIRC the Cardassians ALSO had trouble makers. (There is a a LOT of DS9 and I can't always keep it straight.) Basically there were populations in place (for however long) and the two governments moved the maps in the name of peace.

Also if I recall the DS9 episodes the war on Federation colonists was (secretly of course) condoned by the Cardassian government while similar action was not condoned by the Federation.

I'm always suspicious when someone starts along the lines of "This is unimportant to me so I can't possibly understand how it would be important to you. You're just causing trouble."

Star Trek is full of people who live on barely habitable rocks when they could be lounging in Paris with a replicator. I don't understand it, but there must be some appeal.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm watching DS9 The Maquis, were the viewers meant to be sympathic to their cause? Well I think they were troublemakers. Space is vast, UFP resources are not scarce. Go move away from the Cardassian area, somewhere else. The Maquis are like the old time European colonists/pioneers/invaders who were attacked by the indigneous peoples, but want their former nation states to protect 'their land'.

Are they? How long were they there? More than a generation? And they were Federation worlds until the Federation turned them over to the Cardassians. The Cardassians are the "colonists/pioneers/invaders" to me. Like the British in Ireland. They are occupiers.

 

[Farscape One]

Yeah it's regularly presented like it's the most normal thing in the world to colonise everything you see without question, even close to warlike hostile empires. Reminds me of how a Jem'Hadar visits DS9 and hands over a list of Bajoran colonies in the Gamma Quadrant that they wiped out and Kira looks shocked like you couldn't see that coming. They've told us to get off their lawn and they've shown that they don't f*ck around, so what did you expect? Seriously...

To be fair, the very first appearance of the Jem'Hadar (and the Dominion, as before then there were only whispers about them) was the Jem'Hadar who beamed into Ops with the Bajoran padd and saying it was from the colony they just destroyed. No warnings, no beacons indicating it was Dominion space... nothing. This already indicated the Dominion were not nice guys, because reasonable people would at least announce to people 'you're trespassing' first before going on the offensive.

 

[Citiprime]

I really think they tried to do the Maquis storyline where you could see both sides.

It was produced during the 1990s where at the time the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations involved land swaps. So, on the one hand, I think you're supposed to see the Maquis as the equivalent of the Israeli settlers who refused to give up their claims to homes/land that have been negotiated away as part of a peace deal. And, in truth and its most idealistic form, the Maquis members have chosen a very selfish path. They're willing to risk a war between the Federation and the Cardassians for property rights in a galaxy where there seems to be plenty of habitable planets to choose from.

On the other hand, bringing Chakotay's people into the story and the legacy of indigenous peoples enduring forced relocation off of land that some government power has negotiated away without their consent brings a lot of negative connotations and sets up why a lot of Starfleet officers either felt conflicted or outright resigned and joined their cause. Add into this that we're never given the impression that the Cardassians EVER entered into this with good faith or intended to live up to the treaty that caused ether relocations or Federation citizens to live behind the Cardassian border. From everything we ever see on-screen, the Cardassians always intended to make these people's lives miserable in order to force them off those planets eventually.

There's also the question of whether or not all of it was even good policy for the Federation in the first place. The Jem'Hadar even taunts Sisko about the treaty during first contact, calling it a tactical mistake. The peace treaty creates an insurrection on the Cardassian border that arguably weakens their position, contributes to their inability to respond to the Klingon invasion, and altogether diminishes their influence to the point they're more receptive to the Dominion's offer of membership.

 

[Farscape One]

I'm watching DS9 The Maquis, were the viewers meant to be sympathic to their cause? Well I think they were troublemakers. Space is vast, UFP resources are not scarce. Go move away from the Cardassian area, somewhere else. The Maquis are like the old time European colonists/pioneers/invaders who were attacked by the indigneous peoples, but want their former nation states to protect 'their land'.

Which was great when it was formerly American Indigenous who were being ousted.

And unless you're talking about some historical incident I'm not aware of (there are lots, of course) when colonists were asking for help it was not their "former" nation it was their current ones.


IIRC the Cardassians ALSO had trouble makers. (There is a a LOT of DS9 and I can't always keep it straight.) Basically there were populations in place (for however long) and the two governments moved the maps in the name of peace.

Also if I recall the DS9 episodes the war on Federation colonists was (secretly of course) condoned by the Cardassian government while similar action was not condoned by the Federation.

I'm always suspicious when someone starts along the lines of "This is unimportant to me so I can't possibly understand how it would be important to you. You're just causing trouble."

Star Trek is full of people who live on barely habitable rocks when they could be lounging in Paris with a replicator. I don't understand it, but there must be some appeal.

Are they? How long were they there? More than a generation? And they were Federation worlds until the Federation turned them over to the Cardassians. The Cardassians are the "colonists/pioneers/invaders" to me. Like the British in Ireland. They are occupiers.

Regarding the Maquis...

The Federation told those colonists decades ago that where they were settling was a 'hotly disputed' region. (Admiral Nechayev said this.)

Considering how easy it was to find the Skreeans an entire planet for themselves (earlier in season 2, "SANCTUARY"), and how Alixus found a world to force others to follow her ways ("PARADISE", also in season 2), Federation space is vast enough that those Maquis colonists could have simply picked worlds that were NOT in the middle of a border dispute.

They were being selfish by settling in that area to begin with, and cried foul when the Cardassians attacked. The Cardassians shouldn't have been attacking worlds in Federation space, but those colonists didn't have to settle there. Those border wars might not have gotten so bad if they were empty planets... a negotiated peace would have likely been easier to make if those worlds were not settled to begin with.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think Federation citizens should be able to live anywhere with in the borders of the Federation.

 

[Citiprime]

I think Federation citizens should be able to live anywhere with in the borders of the Federation.

Although, this does bring up an interesting question, were Maquis colonies (and the colonies most Star Trek episodes run across) technically within the borders of the Federation? Or are they on the frontier and start out in "unclaimed" space, as they develop the Federation feels a responsibility for them because their citizens are there, and depending on their strategic position maybe the Federation claims it as being an extension of their borders?

I mean are we talking about something similar to the historical situation with Texas? Where a bunch of Americans settle there, create their own community, come into conflict with others in the area, but eventually petition to become part of the United States?

For example, the Federation (and Bajorans) had colonies in the Gamma Quadrant, but that wasn't Federation space.

 

[Farscape One]

I think Federation citizens should be able to live anywhere with in the borders of the Federation.

And I agree... but if you have the choice to settle on worlds that are on the border of an aggressive power or somewhere else that is much more peaceful, why would you pick the danger zone? Why would you bring your children to that dangerous area?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Although, this does bring up an interesting question, were Maquis colonies (and the colonies most Star Trek episodes run across) technically within the borders of the Federation? Or are they on the frontier and start out in "unclaimed" space, as they develop the Federation feels a responsibility for them because their citizens are there, and depending on their strategic position maybe the Federation claims it as being an extension of their borders?

I mean are we talking about something similar to the historical situation with Texas? Where a bunch of Americans settle there, create their own community, come into conflict with others in the area, but eventually petition to become part of the United States?

For example, the Federation (and Bajorans) had colonies in the Gamma Quadrant, but that wasn't Federation space.

I'm not sure. Did the Cardassian claim those worlds prior to colonization or did they attack them in an aggressive move into Federation territory? Were those worlds sacrificed to gain Bajor's freedom?

And I agree... but if you have the choice to settle on worlds that are on the border of an aggressive power or somewhere else that is much more peaceful, why would you pick the danger zone? Why would you bring your children to that dangerous area?

I'm sure there are multiple reasons.

When were these colonies established? Prior to the first conflict with Cardassians? What was the relationship between the Union and Federation at the time of settlement?

 

[Farscape One]

I'm not sure. Did the Cardassian claim those worlds prior to colonization or did they attack them in an aggressive move into Federation territory? Were those worlds sacrificed to gain Bajor's freedom?

I'm sure there are multiple reasons.

When were these colonies established? Prior to the first conflict with Cardassians? What was the relationship between the Union and Federation at the time of settlement?

Nothing has ever been mentioned that freeing Bajor was a condition as part of the DMZ treaty. The Cardassians left Bajor almost 2 years prior to the events of "THE MAQUIS". The first time the DMZ was ever mentioned was a side note in a Commander's Log entry Replicant O'Brien was listening to in "WHISPERS", which was still about a year and a half AFTER Bajor was freed.


As far as those colonies...

"Captain, the Indians on Dorvan are a nomadic group that have settled there only twenty years ago, and at that time they were warned that the planet was hotly disputed by the Cardassians. The bottom line is they never should have gone there in the first place."
Admiral Nechayev, "Journey's End", TNG


The other colonies are in the same area as that 'hotly disputed' planet, and clearly a state of war or aggressive acts were happening for quite a while, with incidents like Setlik III being mentioned frequently.

If an area is 'hotly disputed' and you decide to go set up a colony there AFTER being warned it's a dangerous place, you are, quite honestly, a selfish idiot. At best, you are willfully endangering everyone you bring along to that world. At worst, you're making an already tense intergalactic situation even more tense and possibly hastening an armed conflict that will end up getting even more people killed.

And as for having 'multiple reasons' for picking the dangerous planet to settle on over a more peaceful one... they all fall apart when you remember that DS9 had at least TWO nice, quiet planets shown to us in the same season as "THE MAQUIS" two-parter that could easily have been a home for those colonists.

In other words, they were brats.

 

[Gul Sengosts]

To be fair, the very first appearance of the Jem'Hadar (and the Dominion, as before then there were only whispers about them) was the Jem'Hadar who beamed into Ops with the Bajoran padd and saying it was from the colony they just destroyed. No warnings, no beacons indicating it was Dominion space... nothing. This already indicated the Dominion were not nice guys, because reasonable people would at least announce to people 'you're trespassing' first before going on the offensive.

I could have sworn it wasn't the first appearance, but if that's the case, my bad. However I'm certain other species they'd encountered before in the GQ mentioned the Dominion as the ones in power in that area that nobody dares to screw with. And if the Bajorans weren't fully aware of how things work there I'd argue it was very irresponsible to just start building colonies before clearing that up.

But even more generally, I do question why they're building colonies there anyway, right after discovering the wormhole. This is a place in a completely different area of the galaxy, extremely far away from Bajoran or Federation space. What makes these AQ'ers think they could and should settle over there? I'm with Q and his "bloody nose" lecture here, they brought this on themselves.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I could have sworn it wasn't the first appearance, but if that's the case, my bad. However I'm certain other species they'd encountered before in the GQ mentioned the Dominion as the ones in power in that area that nobody dares to screw with.

We got three mentions I can think of.

In Rules of Acquisition Quark learns that if you want to do business in the "Gamma Quadrant" (ie. the area local to them) you have to do business with the Dominion, which has member worlds.

In Sanctuary the refugees had an opportunity to run when their oppressors were conquered by a race that belongs to "something called the Dominion".

In Shadowplay, we learn the Dominion took over a planet and changed their way of life, causing a person to flee far away to the Gamma Quadrant world they're on now.

And that's it. Two whole years the Federation, Klingons etc. were actively exploring the other side of the wormhole, investigating everything even remotely interesting, and they didn't run into a single Dominion member world or Jem'Hadar ship. It seems like the Romulan and Klingon Empires must be closer to the wormhole than the Dominion is.

But even more generally, I do question why they're building colonies there anyway, right after discovering the wormhole. This is a place in a completely different area of the galaxy, extremely far away from Bajoran or Federation space. What makes these AQ'ers think they could and should settle over there? I'm with Q and his "bloody nose" lecture here, they brought this on themselves.

If there's new land on the other side of a vast distance, someone's going to go and try to settle it, especially if there's a reliable shortcut that shaves 70 years off the trip. The Bajorans were in bad shape after the occupation, but suddenly their Emissary opened up a passage through heaven leading to new worlds full of resources that were practically next door to them. It's no surprise they raced to claim them.

 

[Tallguy]

They're willing to risk a war between the Federation and the Cardassians for property rights in a galaxy where there seems to be plenty of habitable planets to choose from.

As was often the case with DS9 and occasionally TNG they are trying to introduce scarcity and economics into a system that we were assured has neither.

Going back to Sisco's line about it being easy to be a saint in paradise, WHY did these people leave paradise? Was there no room?

The one piece that is never explained that could give the viewers a reasonable take on the people who live on these planets: Why HERE? Why is it THIS land?

Give me an answer to that and I can say they should tell the Cardassians to go pound sand.

Regarding the Maquis...

The Federation told those colonists decades ago that where they were settling was a 'hotly disputed' region. (Admiral Nechayev said this.)

"Disputed" means there's a dispute. If the Federation wasn't disputing it then it would just have been Cardassian space. SOMEONE in the Federation had the impression that it belonged to the Federation.

If your neighbor decides that half of your lawn belongs to them then it could be said that it is "disputed". And if you do anything with that half then, hey, you knew this was hotly disputed.

But in the name of peace, you should just leave it alone. Or give it to your neighbor. Otherwise that is selfish.

They were being selfish by settling in that area to begin with, and cried foul when the Cardassians attacked.

"Selfish" implies a motive (and an improper one). "Hey, you staying here could start a war. And it could get you killed. And we have another planet just like it over here."

"No. We're staying just because. And we'll fight, steal, and kill for it. Because that's how we roll."
There has to be more to it than that. Maybe it's just that the settlement has a long tradition of existence. But it's not like generations of people grew up there.

The Cardassians shouldn't have been attacking worlds in Federation space, but those colonists didn't have to settle there.

I don't even know what to do with this one. "What can we say? You wandered into a bad neighborhood. Totally your fault. Not the fault of the people who robbed you and killed your family. They're just being who they are and you knew that in advance. Do something about it? Oh, heavens no. That could be bad and clearly you don't have a grasp of the situation. Let YOU do something about it? Are you insane?"

Those border wars might not have gotten so bad if they were empty planets... a negotiated peace would have likely been easier to make if those worlds were not settled to begin with.

Um... Sure? Same for the Cardassian worlds? "Here, Cardassia Prime. You can have these. They're yours. But don't use them or put people on them. Just be satisfied in the peace and knowing that they are yours."

 

[Macintosh]

As was often the case with DS9 and occasionally TNG they are trying to introduce scarcity and economics into a system that we were assured has neither.

Going back to Sisco's line about it being easy to be a saint in paradise, WHY did these people leave paradise? Was there no room?

I suppose there's always the allure of the unknown, of "frontier living", of having your own world away from the bustle of Earth and the other core Federation planets. There does seem to be a distinct undercurrent of Federation people who are opposed the advanced technology and absurd luxury it can afford, believing it to be "dishonest" in some way. Picard's parents refused to have any advanced technology in the house, for example, and there are several cases of colonies being set up for farming and the like. Further along that scale you have lunatics the New Essentialists and, arguably, the Maquis. There are always people who will want to live a more simple existence out in the wilderness.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I suppose there's always the allure of the unknown, of "frontier living", of having your own world away from the bustle of Earth and the other core Federation planets. There does seem to be a distinct undercurrent of Federation people who are opposed the advanced technology and absurd luxury it can afford, believing it to be "dishonest" in some way. Picard's parents refused to have any advanced technology in the house, for example, and there are several cases of colonies being set up for farming and the like. Further along that scale you have lunatics the New Essentialists and, arguably, the Maquis. There are always people who will want to live a more simple existence out in the wilderness.

It's not even necessarily 'dishonest' or technology hating or anything like that.

In paradise, opportunity to shine is limited because everyone has what they need so no one has anything to do but become the best there is at what they're interested in.

If you're not in the top 10-20%, you're not getting the prestigious institutional positions. So you either accept that and live for fun or whatever alternative you can live with on Earth, or you go somewhere else where they're desperate for people instead of overflowing with people.

A lot of people are going to stay in paradise and just not worry about prestige or social standing. But a lot of people wouldn't be able to live that way and are going to seek out some other place where they feel needed or appreciated.

 

[Citiprime]

As was often the case with DS9 and occasionally TNG they are trying to introduce scarcity and economics into a system that we were assured has neither.

Going back to Sisco's line about it being easy to be a saint in paradise, WHY did these people leave paradise? Was there no room?

The one piece that is never explained that could give the viewers a reasonable take on the people who live on these planets: Why HERE? Why is it THIS land?

Give me an answer to that and I can say they should tell the Cardassians to go pound sand.

I think the best analogy the Trek shows put forward would be the people who prefer real food over replicated food, or people that would rather go to Risa and experience real people and a real environment than to spend a weekend in a holodeck with whatever sex partner in whatever fantasy the computer can make for you.

The replicator has taken away food scarcity, and can be programmed to provide whatever food you desire, but there's still people who would rather have a real rack of lamb than a replicated one.

I think that holds true for the people who want to colonize planets. Instead of living in "paradise," they want to be pioneers that build something "real" and challenging. And sometimes that's because they just want to be part of expanding humanity's influence outward, and sometimes (like with Chakotay's people or the Luddite's that wanted to get away from technology) it's done for ideological reason that don't necessarily align with the Federation's.

 

[fireproof78]

The one piece that is never explained that could give the viewers a reasonable take on the people who live on these planets: Why HERE? Why is it THIS land?

"Because it's there, Spock."

 

[Tallguy]

"Because it's there, Spock."

Oh, I KNOW why TOS characters boldly go. It's the wild west. And Earth isn't supposed to be a post-scarcity utopia.

So I just watched DS9's Tribunal. Feh. This goes into a LOOOOONG running TNG era trope of "We can't take action because that would risk war."

The Cardassians have kidnapped and falsely charged a Federation citizen in Federation space (Miles O'Brien). And by the end of this episode we find out that this is not random thing but it's part of a long running sleeper operation (where they captured, tortured, and killed another Federation citizen AND replaced him with a spy!) What are the Cardassians doing if not risking war? Or looking at it another way: The only reason they are taking this risk is because they know that nothing will come of it. And by the end of the episode they are apparently correct.

As far as I can tell nothing is made of the fact that they snagged the O'Briens in Federation space. Even if Miles had been guilty as sin that should have been kind of a thing, yeah? Nope.

It's been a few years since I've watched this section of DS9 and as of now I'm pretty firmly on team Maquis at this point. (I'm at least on the side of the settlers.) Let the Cardassians do "the right thing" and "avoid a terrible war". If it's as necessary as the people in Star Trek seem to think then it shouldn't be that hard. Unless the Cardassians aren't up for it?

 

[Nyotarules]

I really think they tried to do the Maquis storyline where you could see both sides.

It was produced during the 1990s where at the time the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations involved land swaps. So, on the one hand, I think you're supposed to see the Maquis as the equivalent of the Israeli settlers who refused to give up their claims to homes/land that have been negotiated away as part of a peace deal. And, in truth and its most idealistic form, the Maquis members have chosen a very selfish path. They're willing to risk a war between the Federation and the Cardassians for property rights in a galaxy where there seems to be plenty of habitable planets to choose from.

On the other hand, bringing Chakotay's people into the story and the legacy of indigenous peoples enduring forced relocation off of land that some government power has negotiated away without their consent brings a lot of negative connotations and sets up why a lot of Starfleet officers either felt conflicted or outright resigned and joined their cause. Add into this that we're never given the impression that the Cardassians EVER entered into this with good faith or intended to live up to the treaty that caused ether relocations or Federation citizens to live behind the Cardassian border. From everything we ever see on-screen, the Cardassians always intended to make these people's lives miserable in order to force them off those planets eventually.

There's also the question of whether or not all of it was even good policy for the Federation in the first place. The Jem'Hadar even taunts Sisko about the treaty during first contact, calling it a tactical mistake. The peace treaty creates an insurrection on the Cardassian border that arguably weakens their position, contributes to their inability to respond to the Klingon invasion, and altogether diminishes their influence to the point they're more receptive to the Dominion's offer of membership.

The problem with The Maquis is the writers retconned their status. In TNG Journey's End, colonists were given the option to move, they refused, so in the end the compromise was they accepted being under Cardassian rule. By DS9 they were still Federation citizens, living near Cardassian terrority with a Starfleet liaison officer, Cal Hudson dealing with their affairs. I can see why the writers did this, the TNG status means any one living in Cardassian terrority is no longer under the protection of the UFP/Starfleet, DS9 retconned that away.

 

[Citiprime]

The problem with The Maquis is the writers retconned their status. In TNG Journey's End, colonists were given the option to move, they refused, so in the end the compromise was they accepted being under Cardassian rule. By DS9 they were still Federation citizens, living near Cardassian terrority with a Starfleet liason officer, Cal Hudson dealing with their affairs. I can see why the writers did this, the TNG status means any one living in Cardassian terrority is no longer under the protection of the UFP/Starfleet, DS9 retconned that away.

Honestly, I always found that a big problem with “Journey’s End,” in that the colonists are basically given a Hobbesian choice to be made under duress as a solution (i.e., abandon your home and everything you’ve built or renounce all your rights as a Federation citizen).

I always reasoned the later retcon in DS9 as someone above Picard overruling his decision and basically saying that you can’t force someone to abandon their citizenship over the threat of loss of property. And that you can’t just leave these people at the mercy of a foreign government because they disagree with Federation policy and want to stay in their homes.

Beyond that, while Chakotay is a Federation citizen with Starfleet having interests in seeing its citizens are treated properly, you get into a fuzzy area as to whether the colony itself is technically a Federation colony, where Starfleet and the Federation have any authority to order these people off their land beyond their claim to the planet in the larger scheme of the treaty. But from everything we see about why Chakotay’s people created the colony in the first place, it was to get away from the Federation in order to preserve elements of their culture. People point out that they were warned this was a disputed area on the frontier when they settled there. Arguably, that may have been the point for some of these colonists. Maybe they wanted a place on the edge of Federation space to create their own thing, thinking they’d have minimal interference from the Federation.

The United States has “expats” who live and own property all over the world under foreign governments. They’re still citizens and still entitled to go to a US embassy to seek help. And one would think that any peace treaty with the Cardassians would include normalization of diplomatic ties which would encompass situations along those lines.