The Maquis - where do you stand?

[darkwing_duck1]

^ I think that's overstating things more than a bit.

What this boils down to is what Sisko said once: "It's easy to be a Saint in Paradise."

The 24th century Federation had been though a 70+ year period of unprecedented peace and stability. The Romulans seemingly no longer players on the galactic stage. The Klingons now allies. What conflicts there were essentially small-scale "brushfire" wars that were far away and had no appreciable effect on the overwhelming majority of the populace. Coupled with an unprecedented expansion of material prosperity via the replicator, and it was a Golden Age of the classic sort.

But like all Golden Ages, it had a flaw: the Federation assumed that the rest of the galaxy was as "enlightened" as it was. And it assumed that the fulfillment of material wants had eliminated the wants themselves.

But not everybody fell into that trap. Those were the people that moved to the "frontiers" to make new lives for themselves. They still remembered and honored the drive to achieve above and beyond the normal toil. They wanted to accomplish something that they could look back on proudly and point to as a legacy for the future.

They were a different social breed of people than their co-citizens, and I suspect neither side really understood each other that well.

In the real world of course, whether the writers intended to or not, the Federation parallelled the real world politics of it's day with it's "we can just all get along" attitude, which has come back to bite US in the ass as hard as it did the Federation.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

darkwing_duck1

"I think that's overstating things more than a bit."

Is it?

The federation sold the colonists, its citizens, to the cardassians, because it was politically convenient - not even necessary.
It then hunted them down like animals because they wanted to protect themselvs against cardassian bullying.
And worst of all - the federation sat by and did nothing while the dominion exterminated HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of its citizens - again, because, at the time, it was 'politically convenient'.

The federation, again and again, betrayed its citizens living in the DMZ, acted as it it had only rights with regards to them and no obligations. It made a mockery of its own professed values and ideals, by actinng like your run of the mill tyrannical big brother.

You can come up with as many 'whys' and 'hows' for the federation's behaviour as you like - it won't change a single fact, a single act of betrayal to the colonists, to its own 'propaganda' values.

 

[neozeks]

Are you truly advocating for the classic "tyrrany of the majority" where whatever the most say is right IS right, no matter how wrong the act is?

Does the majority have an absolute right to do anything whatsoever it wishes to any given minority (person or group) in the name of "the greater good" or not?

Of course not. Nobody is advocating that. But the other extreme isn't right either. It's a matter of balance.

Posit: There is a disease making thousands sick. One person is immune to the disease, and a cure can be made from his blood. But to obtain enough blood for the thosands to be cured, he will die from blood loss. There is for whatever reason NO OTHER MEANS to obtain the cure.

That's not an equivalent example. You're talking death in both alternatives. The Maquis situation is different. Surely relocating the colonists wouldn't have killed them? They themselves would have been better off.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."

- John Stuart Mill

What good is the Federation if it refuses to engage in one of the prime responsibilities of any government. To protect the lives and sovereign property of it's citizens?

The Federation FOUGHT a war to protect them. But in the end it decided that the goal of the war wasn't worth the suffering it caused (to the UFP as a whole and to the colonists themselves) and that the interests of the UFP as a whole and the colonists themselves would be served best by stopping it, even if it meant giving away the colonies. I'm not saying it's completely justifiable, we don't know enough about the situation, but I can't paint it just as 'treason' or 'appeasement' either

Only when it is used correctly. When it is used INcorrectly it ceases to be legal.

Who determines when it is used correctly?

I don't know...ask the people of the Sudetenland, or Poland, or France, or Kuwait, or all the people who spent decades under the iron heel of the Soviet Union in the so-called "Warsaw Pact"...

Again, not the same thing. Sudetenland wasn't the Western Allies' territory to give in the first place. A bloody war hadn't already been fought. Hitler gave nothing in return. It didn't prevent the war. Giving up the Fed colonies DID.

As for the Soviets, tell me, should the US have fought a war with the Soviets after WW2 to liberate Eastern Europe? Would that have actually helped those people in the long run?

And it's those SAME colonists who chose to fight the Cardassians when the Federation sold them out.

What does that have to do with my point? And the Federation never intended to put them in harms way. That's precisely why they wanted to relocate them, to get them out of harms way. If anything, the Federation should be blamed for not predicting the colonists' unwillingness to go when it made it's decision.

Three letters: M A D

It is not a crime to make a person (or nation) suffer equally to the amount of suffering he inflicts upon you.

Yes it is, if it's unnecessary.

They had already fought a war (one the Cardassians started I might add). The Federation won. Why give them ANY such concessions to begin with? If concessions WERE somehow justified, it still didn't give the Federation the right to steal colonial lands.

Do we even know the Feds won? I always got the impression it was a drawn-out border conflict that mostly ended in stalemate. Yes, the Feds are stronger than the Cardies. But they are also much larger with much more territory to protect.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

darkwing_duck1

"I think that's overstating things more than a bit."

Is it?

The federation sold the colonists, its citizens, to the cardassians, because it was politically convenient - not even necessary.
It then hunted them down like animals because they wanted to protect themselvs against cardassian bullying.
And worst of all - the federation sat by and did nothing while the dominion exterminated HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of its citizens - again, because, at the time, it was 'politically convenient'.

The federation, again and again, betrayed its citizens living in the DMZ, acted as it it had only rights with regards to them and no obligations. It made a mockery of its own professed values and ideals, by actinng like your run of the mill tyrannical big brother.

You can come up with as many 'whys' and 'hows' for the federation's behaviour as you like - it won't change a single fact, a single act of betrayal to the colonists, to its own 'propaganda' values.

I agree in large part, but I disagree with what seems to be your assertion that the very IDEA of the Federation is somehow a pack of lies and propaganda.

The Maquis debacle represents a case of the Federation failing to live up to it's principles, but isn't proof that the entire Federation concept is some sort of scam or tyrrany.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Maxwell didn't "hate" the Cardassians. He just didn't trust them any further than he could toss a Galor. Did he go about proving their perfidy the wrong way. Absolutely. But trying to paint him as a rabid, foaming anti-Cardi bigot is wrong.

Actually I was thinking of O'Brien.

Anger is not hatred. Anger is anger. Hatred can come from anger, but is not anger itself, but a different emotion.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Well, if you believe that, then I suppose you also believe the notion that, after the Maquis were pardoned, they would willingly join up to fight against the Dominion? (AFAIK, in the VOY relaunch, that is exactly what happened.)

I still have a hard time getting my head round that. I question why they would bother agreeing to that, given how much they hate the Federation. They may not like the Dominion either, of course, but why would they join up to fight for a Federation they so obviously hate? (There's no indication that the terms of their pardon were dependent ON their joining to fight in the Dominion war.) Is it simply a matter of which do they hate less, the Federation or the Dominion? I suppose it must be.

 

[DonIago]

I'm sure some of them figured they could take out their anger on the Federation after the Dominion was beaten back...and if the Dominion wasn't beaten back, it would be a moot point in any case.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Maxwell didn't "hate" the Cardassians. He just didn't trust them any further than he could toss a Galor. Did he go about proving their perfidy the wrong way. Absolutely. But trying to paint him as a rabid, foaming anti-Cardi bigot is wrong.

Actually I was thinking of O'Brien.

He doesn't hate them either. Not liking someone is not "hating" them in the sense you mean. O'Brian doesn't like Cardassians because of the things he had to do to fight them. I think that's a pretty legitimate basis for not wanting to be around someone.

Would you expect someone who was a survivor of the Bataan Death March to be immanently comfortable around Japanese people? Or a Vietnam PoW around Vietnamese?

Well, if you believe that, then I suppose you also believe the notion that, after the Maquis were pardoned, they would willingly join up to fight against the Dominion? (AFAIK, in the VOY relaunch, that is exactly what happened.)

Why wouldn't they? They're at risk from the Dominion too. Indeed, they would have more reason to fight them than many, given the Dominion's purge of the DMZ.

I still have a hard time getting my head round that. I question why they would bother agreeing to that, given how much they hate the Federation. They may not like the Dominion either, of course, but why would they join up to fight for a Federation they so obviously hate?

There is nothing to say that they "hate" the Federation per se. They just had (entirely legitimate) reasons to be at odds with them.

Cal Hudson, for example. He didn't hate Sisko OR the Federation. His demenor made it clear. He didn't even want to fight them. He would if he had to, but he didn't WANT to. That's why he warned Sisko not to try to come after him, saying that it "wasn't right" for them to be fighting.

 

[sonak]

I'm not sure if people are deliberately misrepresenting facts because otherwise they wouldn't have much of an argument, but the idea that the Federation "sold out" the colonists is nonsense. THEY ASKED THEM TO MOVE! They didn't strip them of Federation citizenship and place them under the sovereignty of the Cardassians-they asked them to pack their bags and move to some other nice spot WITHIN THE FEDERATION in order to avoid a war!

There is a concept called eminent domain. Are folks here really saying that victims of eminent domain would be justified in taking up arms against a government that invoked that against them???

Really, how much of a property rights absolutist would you have to be to make the pro-Maquis argument straight-facedly? There's NEVER justification for forcing any group to move from ANY PLACE at ANY TIME for ANY REASON???

Even if moving might mean a much greater good?

That's an absurd argument.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

This is not eminent domain, but a misuse thereof. While I do not recommend violence, I do think that the colonists were right. AGAIN--had the Federation not conceded to Cardassian demands--to the demands of a lesser power, had they not come up with OTHER things that could have been given without depriving people of their property rights. Telling people that they have no choice but abandon their homes and their lives or come under Cardassian rule is no choice at all.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

sonak

So - the federation asked the colonists to move and they refused.

You seem to think that this transforms them into second class citizens - that can be hunted down for political capital and then disposed of when its politically convenient.
This, of course, is non-sense - as federation citizens, the colonists have fundamental rights that can not be nullified simply because they refused to slavishly obey the government.

The federation acted like a tyranny, treating the colonists as having essentially no rights, then letting them be exterminated without lifting a finger. The federation poisoning its own citizens' colonies? Passivly watching the genocide of hundreds of thousands of its citizens?
Inexcusable.

 

[DonIago]

Since you don't know what kind of agreement the colonists agreed to in the first place, how can you argue that the Federation violated anything?

This is like listening to people complaining about getting fired in a state where employment is at the will of the employer. Barring certain circumstances, while it may not be -fair- that the employee got fired, it is entirely legal.

Don't ever confuse morality with legality.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

DonIago

One of the fundamental rights of citizens is to be protected by the state against genocide. Another - to NOT be poisoned or killed without being legally convicted.

The federation or any other state cannot free itself from these rights by passing some law that would be valid (aka NOT contradict the constitution or its equivalent) only in the most tyrannical, opressive systems.

Morally, legally - the federation BETRAYED the colonists. It betrayed its obligations toward them, as federation citizens - after it abused its rights towards these same citizens, by continuously hunting them down like animals for years, in order to gain political capital with the cardassians.

 

[sonak]

Well, it doesn't make them into "second-class citizens," it makes them into folks who are disobeying the law.


Two sovereign powers made a LEGAL TREATY in which certain colonies changed hands. Whereas Cardassia might be a military dictatorship, the UFP appears to be a democracy.


Once the Federation made that legal agreement, it became law of that sector that those planets were Cardassian after a certain period of adjustment.

The Maquis decided to carry out an ILLEGAL WAR AGAINST THE RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENT OF THOSE COLONIES!!!



I think that it should be totally legal to smoke marijuana, and that it's a b.s. law that says that it's not.

However, I should work within the system to change that law, right?

Or, using folks' arguments here, should one just smoke marijuana in public and then cry that they're persecuted when they BROKE A LAW?


Sure, I think that laws can be immoral or wrong. But the Maquis shouldn't be surprised that they were attacked for fighting a blatantly illegal war in the first place.

 

[neozeks]

This is not eminent domain, but a misuse thereof.

That's your opinion. Anyway, even if it was, it's not for the colonists to decide. They should have gone to court and contested it. Maybe they did. We don't know.

AGAIN--had the Federation not conceded to Cardassian demands--to the demands of a lesser power, had they not come up with OTHER things that could have been given without depriving people of their property rights.

Why are you so sure there were other things possible? Or that they didn't try those other things?

The Maquis decided to carry out an ILLEGAL WAR AGAINST THE RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENT OF THOSE COLONIES!!!

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Given the Cardassian government's record in treating it's own citizens, I have no trouble believing they opressed the Federation colonists. The colonists organizing to defend themselves against this, that I don't see as wrong or illegal. However, as Sisko said, they crossed the line once they started blowing up freighters, abducting Cardassian officials, attacking neutral and Federation shipping and in general, destabilizing the region and pulling it into open war. What should have they done? They should have been less triger-happy, avoided escalation and instead tried to pursue official paths.

 

[DonIago]

DonIago

One of the fundamental rights of citizens is to be protected by the state against genocide. Another - to NOT be poisoned or killed without being legally convicted.

The federation or any other state cannot free itself from these rights by passing some law that would be valid (aka NOT contradict the constitution or its equivalent) only in the most tyrannical, opressive systems.

Morally, legally - the federation BETRAYED the colonists. It betrayed its obligations toward them, as federation citizens - after it abused its rights towards these same citizens, by continuously hunting them down like animals for years, in order to gain political capital with the cardassians.

Ah, but the Federation didn't betray Federation citizens. The Federation told those people "You're welcome to stay right where you are...but if you do, you won't -be- Federation citizens anymore." And the colonists said, "Hey, that's fine with us." Except clearly it wasn't in the end, since they attacked Federation vessels, and not just military ones. Hence, terrorism.

You make all these assumptions about what the Federation was or was not legally or morally inclined to do, but on what grounds do you base these assumptions? When exactly did we get a detailed description of the rights of Federation citizens under the law?

Stop trying to impose your values upon the Federation without knowing what exactly their laws are.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

DonIago

One of the fundamental rights of citizens is to be protected by the state against genocide. Another - to NOT be poisoned or killed without being legally convicted.

The federation or any other state cannot free itself from these rights by passing some law that would be valid (aka NOT contradict the constitution or its equivalent) only in the most tyrannical, opressive systems.

Morally, legally - the federation BETRAYED the colonists. It betrayed its obligations toward them, as federation citizens - after it abused its rights towards these same citizens, by continuously hunting them down like animals for years, in order to gain political capital with the cardassians.

Ah, but the Federation didn't betray Federation citizens. The Federation told those people "You're welcome to stay right where you are...but if you do, you won't -be- Federation citizens anymore." And the colonists said, "Hey, that's fine with us." Except clearly it wasn't in the end, since they attacked Federation vessels, and not just military ones. Hence, terrorism.

O, but only federation citizens are bound by federation treaties.
IF the federation retreated the colonists federation citizenship, it had no right to hunt them down as animals for breaking the federation-cardassian treaty.
Each time the federation hunted down maquis as terrorists for breaking its treaty, it confirmed their status as federation citizens.

Proof that the colonists are federation citizens can be found in practically each episode dealing with them - in DS9, TNG and VOY.
In 'blaze of glory' (the last episode dealing with the colonists), for example, Eddington stated that the colonists planned to relinquish federation citizenship IN THE FUTURE aka they still had it.

You make all these assumptions about what the Federation was or was not legally or morally inclined to do, but on what grounds do you base these assumptions? When exactly did we get a detailed description of the rights of Federation citizens under the law?

On what grounds do I make the assumptions that federation citizens have the fundamental rights of citizens in free (more or less) states? Like NOT being killed by their state without trial, not mass poisoned ar let to be massacred?

On the grounds that the federation IS a more or less free state and not a tyranny.

Morally, legally - the federation BETRAYED the colonists

Stop trying to impose your values upon the Federation without knowing what exactly their laws are.

DonIago - If the federation doesn't recognoize its citizens even such fundamental rights, then THE FEDERATION IS A SLAVEMASTER, AND ITS CITIZENS DISPOSABLE SLAVES.
Then the federation is a tyranny and contiuously betrays its professed values; in other words, everyone would be better off if the federation ceased to exist.

 

[DonIago]

If that's how you want to interpret events, you're welcome to do so.

I have no interest in debating with someone who's going to yell at me. Certainly not about a tv show. Especially when they're making assumptions and exaggerating the scope of events to favor their own perspective.

So congratulations, you win. I hope you're pleased with yourself.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Well, it doesn't make them into "second-class citizens," it makes them into folks who are disobeying the law.

Tell me, sonak, does the state have the right to kill its "folks who are disobeying the law" without trial? To mass poison them? To let them be exterminated without lifting a finger?

The colonists WERE treated like disposable second class citizens. As if they had only obligations and no rights. Disgusting.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

If that's how you want to interpret events, you're welcome to do so.

That is the only way events can be interpreted. The federation's behaviour was just so over the top, so disgusting.
Which is why your counterarguments are so easily negated.

I have no interest in debating with someone who's going to yell at me. Certainly not about a tv show. Especially when they're making assumptions and exaggerating the scope of events to favor their own perspective.

So congratulations, you win. I hope you're pleased with yourself.

"Yell" at you? And I am "making assumptions and exaggerating"?

Understandably, you don't like being proven wrong, DonIago.

 

[DonIago]

Wow...do you listen to yourself talk?

"That is the only way events can be interpreted." My god, the self-righteousness...

For the record, using bold-font and ALL CAPS when talking online -is- generally considered yelling. So yes, you yelled. Given that you're a Captain here I find it unlikely you didn't already know this.

Unless you actually want to get back to talking about the topic instead of each other, I respectfully ask that you leave me alone from this point forward.