I don't "get" the Maquis at all. Please explain them for me.

[Cepstrum]

First, let me apologize if this issue has arisen before. Because I'm using a mobile device, searching thoroughly is quite difficult. If this is redundant, please forgive me, and perhaps direct me to the appropriate thread.

Second, I was going to post this in the DS9 forum, for the genesis of my puzzlement was sparked by watching the initial Sisko-Eddington confrontation in the beginning of "For the Uniform.". But the Maquis are involved in TNG, DS9, and VOY, so I posted here.

Here's my puzzlement:

I have to disagree strongly with the Maquis and cannot reconcile their existence within the Trek universe. While the swapping of planets might have been unfair to the colonists, consider:

1. It brought peace, saving countless lives in further conflict. Yes, it came at a sacrifice and may have been unfair. But what about the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"?

2. The Maquis *are* deluding themselves and their followers into a life of hardship and likely death. There's *no* chance they have in winning their planets back with both Starfleet *and* the Cardassians against them. They could have accepted resettlement on some very nice worlds. The Federation was prepared to generously compensate them and provide for their needs on their new homeworlds.

3. Finally, aren't 24th century humans supposed to be a little more "enlightened" than resorting to terrorism and violence? They're not even supporting a righteous cause, such a nobler — or at least more understandable —*one such as fighting for religious freedom, against discrimination, or destitution. They would have virtually unlimited resources on their new planets. They're only fighting for some specific territory that has no long historical, political, or religious meaning to them. They just don't want to give up the farms etc. they built (which the Federation would help them quickly rebuild on different worlds).

One more thing: I get that some may want to disassociate from the UFP. But why not do that after the Federation relocates you and rebuilds everything you had? Sure, it wouldn't be quite the same (the colonists seem to pride themselves in their hard-work and self-reliance), but they could continue that ethos *after* the Feds rebuild their colonies to be as close to the originals as possible.

I hope the reliable TrekBBS can help me see the other side of the coin. Doubtless there must be some serious flaws in my understanding here.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

[T'Girl]

2. The Maquis *are* deluding themselves and their followers into a life of hardship and likely death. There's *no* chance they have in winning their planets back

This is the thing, even if the maquis forced the Cardassians off of the their former worlds, what then?

It's unlikely that the Federation would have permitted the new won maquis planets into the Federation as a member or a protectorate. So what then, sandwiched inbetween the Federation and the Union as a collection of independent single star system republics?

They would have had the traverse either Federation or Union space just to trade between each other, unlikely to be permitted.

after the Federation relocates you and rebuilds everything you had

Well, not everyone wants to be provided for like a child their entire life.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Your great grandfather built a house with his bare hands. Your grandfather grew up and raised a family in that house. Your father grew up in that house, and then so did you. Every precious childhood memory of more than three generations of your family takes place in that house. Every time something needed fixing in that house, it was a grand effort by the entire family, bringing you all closer together as you work productively to make that house the very best house it could possibly be.

One day, the government comes in and says that, to end the war in Iraq (insert analogous faraway conflict if you're not American), they've given your house and property to the Iraqi terrorists, but it's totally okay because you're going to get a house that's just as good a couple cities away.

It's unfair, but hey, greater good, right? All you have to do is give up the home your great grandfather built himself, the place where every childhood memory of note happened, et cetera et cetera.

I don't know you well enough to say how you would respond, but *I'd* be pissed as everloving hell.

Was forming a militia with an ill-defined purpose beyond lashing out at the people who wronged you a logical response? Of course not. But humans aren't Vulcans.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is all well and good in theory, but in practice it's a little harder to stick to. And then you've got to remember that this was the moral of Wrath of Khan. Search for Spock had a totally different moral; that sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. Also, Insurrection.

 

[Anwar]

Well, the people on those worlds had only settled them 20 years or so prior so THEY are the "great-grandparents" in that hypothetical scenario. But it's a similar principle.

Of course, the worlds were always in disputed territory from around the time of settlement so it's more a case of knowing it'd be trouble but expecting the government to always be there to cover you even if you weren't exactly 100% in the right to do so. It's a tad more complex than that.

It'd be more like having a home on the Iraqi border and then being asked to move.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Not being asked. Being *told* to move. Out of a home you built with your own two hands.

Times... however many colonists there were. Let's assume a million. So times a million.

edit: fair point about the time involved, though. Did not do the research there.

edit #2: Oh, and plus maybe twenty years of being paranoid about Cardassian aggression and finally having an excuse to strike back at the boogeyman.

 

[DonIago]

Do we really know that anyone on those colonies really built their homes as opposed to having them replicated or whatever the 24th Century equivalent of pre-fab is?

Having your home burn down in this day and age is a tragedy and a crisis. Having it burn down by TNG is a matter of significantly less import...yeah it sucks, but it's not like you have to deal with the real estate market.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Missing the point.

Their homes were just given away. My analogy was not meant to be exact, just to illustrate that the colonists were losing the homes they'd worked to build and lived on for however long they were there.

If I live in my house for one month and didn't even have memories not directly related to moving in to said house and then the government took it away from me to appease people I was afraid of or hated without so much as running it by me first, I'd be pissed.

 

[DonIago]

I'd suggest not settling in a house between two hostile factions then.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Hindsight is 20/20, and has little to do with the Maquis motivations in general. Regardless of how ill-advised it was to make those specific planets their homes, they were anyway.

 

[Sector 7]

The Maquis should never have settled those planets in the first place. To continue the currrent analogy: Knowing the town we settle down in is already being fought over by Allied and Iraqi forces, I, an American Baptist, decide to build a house anyway and hope for the best. Is it really everyone else's fault when the Allies give that town to Iraq? or is it my fault for building my house in disputed territory?

 

[Elias Vaughn]

...you get that I'm not saying the Maquis were right, yes? I'm only explaining why I believe they did what they did.

Also, my previous post. Saying that they shouldn't have settled there is irrelevant to the question of their motivations well after settling there.

 

[neozeks]

It's unfair, but hey, greater good, right? All you have to do is give up the home your great grandfather built himself, the place where every childhood memory of note happened, et cetera et cetera.

As I pointed out in a recent thread about the Maquis (here it is, if you're interested, Cepstrum: http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=123321), that kind of thing routinely happens today when, say, your house gets in the way of a new highway that is being built. It may not be fair, but eminent domain trumps childhood memories.

 

[Sci]

I have to disagree strongly with the Maquis and cannot reconcile their existence within the Trek universe.

You mean your view of the Trekverse doesn't allow for differences of opinion within a free society?

While the swapping of planets might have been unfair to the colonists,

Then you do get the Maquis. You just refuse to accept that someone else could seriously hold an opinion with which you disagree.

1. It brought peace, saving countless lives in further conflict.

No, it did not. The Cardassian Union was an expansionist military dictatorship, and even after it secured complete control of the Demilitarized Zone by wiping out the Maquis with Dominion help, the Cardassians still wanted to invade the Federation with their Dominion allies. Handing the Cardassians Federation worlds was nothing less than appeasement; they might as well have handed over the Sudetenland to the Third Reich for all the good it did.

Yes, it came at a sacrifice and may have been unfair. But what about the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"?

And a Maquis or Maquis sympathizer would respond by arguing that the majority never has the right to violate the rights of a minority. Those colonists had an absolute and inviolate right to that land, and the Federation government, they would argue, had no right to steal their land and hand it over to an enemy nation.

A Maquis sympathizer might further argue that the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few if the rights of the few are being violated, as such violations endanger the rights of everyone. After all, if they can take a colony away from millions of Federation citizens, can they take Andor away from the Andorians? Vulcan away from the Vulcans? Where does it stop?

2. The Maquis *are* deluding themselves and their followers into a life of hardship and likely death. There's *no* chance they have in winning their planets back with both Starfleet *and* the Cardassians against them.

It's their lives; they have a right to fight and protect their homes if they want, even if it's hopeless.

And for all that it was supposedly "hopeless," it certainly took the Cardassians a long time to finally wipe them out -- and it only happened once they joined the Dominion.

They could have accepted resettlement on some very nice worlds. The Federation was prepared to generously compensate them and provide for their needs on their new homeworlds.

The fact that someone who's just stolen your home is willing to give you shiny new baubles does not change the fact that they stole your home.

3. Finally, aren't 24th century humans supposed to be a little more "enlightened" than resorting to terrorism and violence?

Bullshit. There's nothing wrong with resorting to violence to protect your rights when the law has failed you and your own government has betrayed you. By handing over Federation lands and delivering Federation citizens into the hands of the enemy, the Federation violated the social contract. It had no more right to expect the loyalty of those colonists, and they had every right to declare independence and attempt to use force to secure their own rights.

It was betraying Federation citizens in the name of appeasing un-appeasable imperialists that was unenlightened.

They would have virtually unlimited resources on their new planets. They're only fighting for some specific territory that has no long historical, political, or religious meaning to them.

Complete and utter bullshit. TNG established that the Federation-Cardassian border wars had been going on for twenty years as of 2367, and the treaty handing over those worlds wasn't signed until 2370. And we don't know under what circumstances that conflict began. It's entirely possible that those worlds had been inhabited by Federation citizens for generations. And who is the Federation government to decide that their homes had no legitimate meaning to the colonists?

They just don't want to give up the farms etc. they built (which the Federation would help them quickly rebuild on different worlds).

No, they don't want to give up their communities. You can't just re-locate an entire community to another planet -- it would never work. It's the same reason Picard objected to the Federation forcibly relocating the Bak'u in INS.

"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"

One more thing: I get that some may want to disassociate from the UFP. But why not do that after the Federation relocates you and rebuilds everything you had? Sure, it wouldn't be quite the same (the colonists seem to pride themselves in their hard-work and self-reliance), but they could continue that ethos *after* the Feds rebuild their colonies to be as close to the originals as possible.

Because it was their home, and because no one else had the right to take it from them.

Period.

 

[Sector 7]

...you get that I'm not saying the Maquis were right, yes? I'm only explaining why I believe they did what they did.

Also, my previous post. Saying that they shouldn't have settled there is irrelevant to the question of their motivations well after settling there.

I do "get it", I just have a different opinion. I do not think it is irrelevant to the issue. It is at the heart of the issue.

It's unfair, but hey, greater good, right? All you have to do is give up the home your great grandfather built himself, the place where every childhood memory of note happened, et cetera et cetera.

As I pointed out in a recent thread about the Maquis (here it is, if you're interested, Cepstrum: http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=123321), that kind of thing routinely happens today when, say, your house gets in the way of a new highway that is being built. It may not be fair, but eminent domain trumps childhood memories.

I experienced this when a highway went through the middle of my very good friend's property. His daughter and grandson lived in one house and he lived in the other on several acres. The highway now separates those two homes. The nearest intersection is over a mile away. He was not happy having to drive over two miles to get to a house he could see from his porch. He fought for years to no avail.

 

[Sci]

For the record, an accurate comparison would not be to a single home being demolished under eminent domain. An accurate comparison would be the U.S. government transferring dozens upon dozens of cities with thousands upon thousands of inhabitants into the territory of a hostile, expansionist foreign power neighboring the U.S. (Say, Canada is taken over by Nazis and the upper halves of Minnesota and North Dakota and Washington State being transferred into Canadian territory.)

 

[Elias Vaughn]

One more thing: I get that some may want to disassociate from the UFP. But why not do that after the Federation relocates you and rebuilds everything you had? Sure, it wouldn't be quite the same (the colonists seem to pride themselves in their hard-work and self-reliance), but they could continue that ethos *after* the Feds rebuild their colonies to be as close to the originals as possible.

Because it was their home, and because no one else had the right to take it from them.

Period.

Thank you.

I was starting to worry.

...you get that I'm not saying the Maquis were right, yes? I'm only explaining why I believe they did what they did.

Also, my previous post. Saying that they shouldn't have settled there is irrelevant to the question of their motivations well after settling there.

I do "get it", I just have a different opinion. I do not think it is irrelevant to the issue. It is at the heart of the issue.

...no, saying that they made a mistake in settling those planets and thus their current indignation in being told to give up their homes are two different things.

Do you defend eminent domain by arguing that you just shouldn't have moved to the house that the government was one day going to take? Of course not; arguing that you should have done something differently in the past because of what just happened is like saying that people are stupid for not divining the future.

 

[Sci]

Everyone, bear in mind that we don't know under what circumstances the Federation-Cardassian border wars started. It's entirely possible that when those worlds were first settled, they were in an uncontested area of space and that the Cardassians only began to claim those worlds long after they'd been settled.

 

[Rett Mikhal]

I've always felt the Maquis were motivated into extremist action because they felt the Federation 'betrayed' them. As Ro Laren mentioned, Cardasians harassed her people for decades. They even tortured her father in front of her eyes to get information.

So, when the Federation Cardassian war ended and the Federation pretty much forgave all the atrocities and started ceding planets to the Cardassians I'm sure it felt like a big cold shoulder to the Bajorians and their underground movements.

 

[Timo]

I'd argue that the Maquis were motivated into extremist action because they were extremists in the first place. People who get along well with a regulated society don't choose to live out in the woods, and don't start shooting other people when they feel they have been wronged.

To be a colonist from the UFP, some sort of a mental illness is probably a prerequisite. That is, a mental illness by the usual definition: "failing to conform to, or live up to, the norms of the society, for deep-rooted psychological reasons (which may or may not have identifiable underlying physiological causes)".

Now add any sort of conflict, be it nasty scaly monsters taking away your home planet or a stupid cloud creature shadowing your purpleberry fields to ruin, and these people would be statistically far more likely to start a killing spree than your average Starfleeter. And that's saying a lot, because Starfleet probably also dregs the society for exceptionally violent and adventurous individuals.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Pauln6]

Yeah, I was uncomfortable with the Maquis, not because of their ideals but because so many of them were human without any strong legitimate claim to the land in dispute. It was a sanitised allegory for the Israel/Palestine and similar conflicts so you can look there for parallels. Of course it isn't a direct correlation - the Israeli's are descended from an opressed people and land was siezed from present settlers in order to create a homeland turning them in some eyes from opressed to oppressors. The Cardassians are a bit more like cartoony villains and the Federation members don't really have much of a claim on the planets that are being claimed by the CU, no more so that the British Empire had a legitimate claim on land settled during their expansionist phase. One could view the settlements as akin to the illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

Places like Gibraltar, the Falklands, and Northern Ireland were occupied for so long that the current settlers want to remain under British rule (although NI will gradually drift towards independence over the next few generations) but anybody looking at it objectively can see that the lands were pilfered from the natives who were then indoctrinated (or imported) to accept new leadership. The USA is the most complicated example, espcially in the southern states that were stolen from Mexico a relatively short time ago. Imagine how the US inhabitants of Florida would feel if it was handed back to Mexico, and that's how the Maquis feel I suppose.