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

[captcalhoun]

the Argentinians ain't got any more right to the Falklands than the Brits do. they're colonising settlers from Europe too. our claim to them is basically: tough shit, we settled them, you didn't. and since the people living there have decided they wish to remain British, they should remain so.

 

[Pauln6]

the Argentinians ain't got any more right to the Falklands than the Brits do. they're colonising settlers from Europe too. our claim to them is basically: tough shit, we settled them, you didn't. and since the people living there have decided they wish to remain British, they should remain so.

Lol - yeah my history on Argentinian genetic make-up is sorely lacking. Does that mean that anybody with indigenous South American DNA has a greater claim though? Just because they hadn't settled the lands does that mean they didn't belong to the indigenous natives? How can they own them if they haven't discovered them yet? Which local tribe would have the greatest claim? The complexities are endless.

However, in the 24th century, it's difficult to see that 'we settled here first' is going to be a legitimate defence in border disputes. If that was the Federation's approach, I think we'd see a lot more wars, starting with the Gorn.

Oddly, the replicator culture of TNG makes the argument seem even dumber. With all the habitable class M worlds out there and unlimited resources why would the average human worry about a world on the Cardassian border? If the Maquis were Bajorans with just a few humans it would make more sense but 98% of them seem to be from other races. The motivation doesn't make a whole lot of sense overall, although I accept that forcibly removing settlers is never pleasant..

 

[neozeks]

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.

Well, at least for Dorvan V, we know that's not the case. From 'Journey's End':

NECHEYEV (continuing) Captain, the Indians colonized Dorvan only twenty years ago... and at that time they were warned the planet was hotly disputed by the Cardassians. The bottom line is... they never should have settled there in the first place.

And I don't think it's like giving half a state over. Given the size of the colonies in relation to the Federation as a whole, it's more like giving up a few small border towns.

 

[Nardpuncher]

The silly thing about the Maquis to me was that you'd hear Chakotay and others talking about all the daring and dangerous things they'd done as members of the Maquis and how battle-hardened they were etc. etc. yet by the time Voyager launched it was only a few months since they'd formed after the events depicted in the DS9 two-parter.

 

[Sci]

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.

It's not an allegory for Israel/Palestine at all. The Jews and the Palestinians both have valid, centuries-old claims to that land; by contrast, whatever claims to the worlds of the DMZ the UFP and Cardassians have are both going to be less than a century old. And neither side views that land as sacred. Nor was either side displaced prior to the Federation signing a treaty.

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,

Florida was taken from the Spanish Empire, not Mexico.

And your comparison is very bad, as there is no evidence that the worlds in conflict between the Federation and Cardassians had indigenous inhabitants.

However, in the 24th century, it's difficult to see that 'we settled here first' is going to be a legitimate defence in border disputes.

Why not? If no one claimed that world, and the Federation settled there first, why would that not make their claim more valid than a hostile imperialist power's claim?

Oddly, the replicator culture of TNG makes the argument seem even dumber. With all the habitable class M worlds out there and unlimited resources why would the average human worry about a world on the Cardassian border?

Because you're only looking at this from a material perspective. You have to remember, you're talking about forcibly uprooting entire communities. Communities don't survive that. You're talking about going in there, forcing an entire community to move, and forcibly disbanding their local governments. That's a fundamental violation of their right to self-determination.

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.

Well, at least for Dorvan V, we know that's not the case. From 'Journey's End':

NECHEYEV (continuing) Captain, the Indians colonized Dorvan only twenty years ago... and at that time they were warned the planet was hotly disputed by the Cardassians. The bottom line is... they never should have settled there in the first place.

Bully for Dorvan, but that's only one world, and there's no evidence that the other contested worlds were so colonized.

And I don't think it's like giving half a state over. Given the size of the colonies in relation to the Federation as a whole, it's more like giving up a few small border towns.

And that makes it any better?

 

[Cepstrum]

Wow, guys. I didn't mean to be so controversial. I apologize for the way I originally worded things.

I agree, Sci et al., that it would be a very tragic thing for the colonists. My main quibble is that I couldn't understand why the Maquis would think they'd ultimately prevail against the combined forces of Starfleet *and* the Cardassians. Furthermore, when the Dominion moved in, I'd have fled as soon as possible.

I've never had my home or community taken away, so in a sense it's unfair for me to think it's unrealistic that the Maquis would choose to stay and fight. I guess my personality would be too cowardly to permit me to take on two powerful fighting forces.

Again, I apologize for coming across too harsh. I mainly just couldn't understand them. I think you have made some valid points about their motivation.

Thanks for digging into this. I appreciate the exchange. I really didn't mean to be inflammatory or hostile. I was genuinely puzzled and sought answers; I *wanted* people to rebut my points. That's why I presented them.

Again, thanks, guys.

 

[Sci]

I agree, Sci et al., that it would be a very tragic thing for the colonists. My main quibble is that I couldn't understand why the Maquis would think they'd ultimately prevail against the combined forces of Starfleet *and* the Cardassians.

1. Some people are not going to fight because they think they're going to win. Some people are going to fight because they believe it's the right thing to do, period.

2. You might as well ask why the Viet Cong would possibly think they'd prevail against the United States Army, or why the Taliban is still fighting in Afghanistan. (Note: I am NOT saying that the Viet Cong or Taliban are justified in their struggles the way I've said that the Maquis were justified. My comparison here is extending purely to questions of power dynamics.)

History is full of examples of smaller, less-powerful guerilla movements managing to wear down and then defeat much larger, more powerful militaries. They rely on their mobility, familiarity with local terrain, and on a gradual wearing down of public support for the larger forces' objectives.

The Maquis probably thought that they'd be able to wear Starfleet down until the Federation public became so opposed to anti-Maquis operations that the Federation government would order Starfleet to withdraw. After all -- it's not like the Maquis were originally targeting the UFP in the first place; their early military operations were all against the Cardassians, and they didn't start hitting Federation targets until the UFP hit them in retaliation for their anti-Cardassian targets. More than a few members of the public probably have issues with the idea of attacking the Maquis because they attacked the Cardassians; let that anti-war sentiment grow, and the Maquis could in theory survive long enough to force the Federation out.

That, combined with the Cardassians' defeat at the hands of the Klingons during the 2372 Klingon Invasion would probably have handed de facto control over the DMZ to the Maquis, who would then have been free to establish their own interstellar state and build up their own military. All this presuming that the Cardassians hadn't joined the Dominion, of course.

Thanks for digging into this. I appreciate the exchange. I really didn't mean to be inflammatory or hostile. I was genuinely puzzled and sought answers; I *wanted* people to rebut my points. That's why I presented them.

No worries, and I'm glad you're able to understand another side now (even if you disagree with it).

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The federation betrayed the colonists' fundamental right of property when it ceded their colonies/lands to the cardassians, in an attempt to appease the cardassians.

The federation further betrayed the colonists - still federation citizens - when it hunted them down like animals - killing them without trial, poisoning their colonies with biological weapons - with no repercursions for the perpetrators of these crimes (starfleet officers).

But the greatest betrayal the federation perpetrated against the colonists was when it didn't lift a finger to save them while they were massascred - ALL of them: WOMEN, CHILDREN, ELDERLY (non-combatants) - by the cardassians/dominion.

Apparently, the colonists are federation citizens only when it's convenient for the federation (being bound by federation treaties and the maquis branded as terrorists), NOT when the federation has obligations to fulfill toward the colonists - such as protecting them against genocide.

And why this second-class citizens treatment?
Because the colonists dared say no to big brother - from that moment on, the colonists were just expendable cannon fodder for the federation, without rights, only with obligations, to be disposed of at its convenience.

 

[Anwar]

The Maquis brought the hunting on themselves when they took their war outside the DMZ and to a Fed Outpost (DS9) and began hunting/stealing from the Feds themselves even after the Feds exposed Cardassia smuggling weapons to their DMZ colonists to battle the Maquis with and offered to put an end to the battles in the DMZ.

The Maquis were the first to use bio-weaponry in their war, the Feds retaliated and put an end to what would have otherwise escalated into something far worse.

Doing nothing while the Maquis were slaughtered? The Maquis rejected their aid time and time again, they would've just told the Feds to piss off if they HAD tried to intervene. They made it clear they were independent of the Feds, so if they were getting wiped out by a superior foe it's their own fault.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Anwar

The colonists (and the maquis minority) WERE federation citizens until the end.
This is confirmed in every single episode dealing with them.
Each time the federation hunted down maquis as terrorists, it recognized that the maquis (and, by extension, the rest of the colonists) were federation citizens, subject to federation treaties.

The maquis are labeled as terrorists - they attack (more or less) federation targets?
In this case, the federation has the right to arrest, judge them and, if found guilty, to put them in jail; NOT to execute them on sight or treat them (and the rest of the colonists) as having no rights whatsoever. The federation blatantly ignored its citizens' rights.

The federation poisoned a colony filled with federation citizens - its people! - and most of them were not even maquis - or do you think kindergarten children or housewifes are combatants? A colony is NOT a military base.

The federation let thousands upon thousands of its citizens (of which only a minority were maquis as in combatants) be massacred like insects, because it couldn't be bothered to protect them.

 

[Subcommander R.]

It's not an allegory for Israel/Palestine at all. The Jews and the Palestinians both have valid, centuries-old claims to that land; by contrast, whatever claims to the worlds of the DMZ the UFP and Cardassians have are both going to be less than a century old. And neither side views that land as sacred. Nor was either side displaced prior to the Federation signing a treaty.

Its a parallel to the political realities. For all practical purposes, and certainly to the Palestinians/UFP Colonists the newcomers are foreigners with no connection.

Displacement is trickier. Jews did have new homes in various locations. You could say their claim to the territory was similar to the Cardassian claim if we consider that claim to have some sort of distant historical claim.

You can't discount the whole analogy because of a few tiny details. The analogy is very close, but obviously all such analogies in Trek are not exact. They are general.

 

[DonIago]

Actually, by staying in the DMZ the colonists voluntarily revoked their citizenship. That's made clear on more than one occasion, and any reference to them being Federation citizens is either poor writing or meant in the past tense.

As to the idea that moving meant breaking up communities, by the 24th century what reason do we have to believe a community couldn't be moved en masse?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Actually, by staying in the DMZ the colonists voluntarily revoked their citizenship. That's made clear on more than one occasion, and any reference to them being Federation citizens is either poor writing or meant in the past tense.

Or not, DonIago.

The last mention of them being federation citizens in in 'blaze of glory' - the episode in which they disappeared - in which Eddington specifically said - at length - that the colonists were thinking about renouncing their federation citizenship (IN THE FUTURE) and create their independent nation.

Before then, mentions of them being federation citizens can be found in practically evey episode dealing with them.

 

[Cepstrum]

I agree, Sci et al., that it would be a very tragic thing for the colonists. My main quibble is that I couldn't understand why the Maquis would think they'd ultimately prevail against the combined forces of Starfleet *and* the Cardassians.

1. Some people are not going to fight because they think they're going to win. Some people are going to fight because they believe it's the right thing to do, period.

2. You might as well ask why the Viet Cong would possibly think they'd prevail against the United States Army, or why the Taliban is still fighting in Afghanistan. (Note: I am NOT saying that the Viet Cong or Taliban are justified in their struggles the way I've said that the Maquis were justified. My comparison here is extending purely to questions of power dynamics.)

History is full of examples of smaller, less-powerful guerilla movements managing to wear down and then defeat much larger, more powerful militaries. They rely on their mobility, familiarity with local terrain, and on a gradual wearing down of public support for the larger forces' objectives.

The Maquis probably thought that they'd be able to wear Starfleet down until the Federation public became so opposed to anti-Maquis operations that the Federation government would order Starfleet to withdraw. After all -- it's not like the Maquis were originally targeting the UFP in the first place; their early military operations were all against the Cardassians, and they didn't start hitting Federation targets until the UFP hit them in retaliation for their anti-Cardassian targets. More than a few members of the public probably have issues with the idea of attacking the Maquis because they attacked the Cardassians; let that anti-war sentiment grow, and the Maquis could in theory survive long enough to force the Federation out.

That, combined with the Cardassians' defeat at the hands of the Klingons during the 2372 Klingon Invasion would probably have handed de facto control over the DMZ to the Maquis, who would then have been free to establish their own interstellar state and build up their own military. All this presuming that the Cardassians hadn't joined the Dominion, of course.

Thanks for digging into this. I appreciate the exchange. I really didn't mean to be inflammatory or hostile. I was genuinely puzzled and sought answers; I *wanted* people to rebut my points. That's why I presented them.

No worries, and I'm glad you're able to understand another side now (even if you disagree with it).

Thanks, Sci. I actually don't necessarily disagree with the Maquis; I just can't relate/comprehend them. I'd be glad to move far away from the DMZ and live more comfortably closer to the Federation's core worlds.

It's probably just me: my ancestors were Amish and Mennonite pacifists who not that long ago fled Germany to avoid being drafted into the military. And I've always thought that, had I lived in colonial America during the Revolutionary period, I undoubtedly would have fled to Canada and stayed a British subject to avoid the war.

That might help you understand where I'm coming from. I'm a cautious person.

 

[Sci]

It's not an allegory for Israel/Palestine at all. The Jews and the Palestinians both have valid, centuries-old claims to that land; by contrast, whatever claims to the worlds of the DMZ the UFP and Cardassians have are both going to be less than a century old. And neither side views that land as sacred. Nor was either side displaced prior to the Federation signing a treaty.

Its a parallel to the political realities. For all practical purposes, and certainly to the Palestinians/UFP Colonists the newcomers are foreigners with no connection.

Displacement is trickier. Jews did have new homes in various locations. You could say their claim to the territory was similar to the Cardassian claim if we consider that claim to have some sort of distant historical claim.

You can't discount the whole analogy because of a few tiny details. The analogy is very close, but obviously all such analogies in Trek are not exact. They are general.

But it's a fundamentally BAD analogy. The Cardassian/Federation situation is two groups competing for previously uninhabited land; the Israeli/Palestinian situation is two groups with valid historical ties to an area of land competing for that land.

You cannot compare a competition for land between two groups with longstanding ties to that land to a competition for land that was uninhabited. The comparisons just do not function.

Actually, by staying in the DMZ the colonists voluntarily revoked their citizenship.

No. You're confusing staying in the DMZ with staying in Cardassian territory.

Remember, the Demilitarized Zone was an area of space encompassing both Federation AND Cardassian territory that was supposed to be de-militarized: No weapons, period.

"Journey's End" (TNG) established that the Federation colonists on Dorvan V who stayed on that planet after it became Cardassian territory voluntarily revoked their Federation citizenship. It established no such thing about the Maquis or other Federation citizens.

"The Maquis" (DS9), however, established that there were Federation colonists on Federation worlds that had not been handed over to the Cardassians who were being massacred by the Cardassians, and that the Federation refused to intervene in that for fear of provoking the Cardassians. It ALSO established that there were Federation citizens on worlds that had been handed over to the Cardassians who refused to leave and were fighting to keep their homes. It never established that the Dorvan V deal applied to any other world -- ESPECIALLY since the inhabitants of Dorvan V CONSENTED to the transfer of their world to Cardassian jurisdiction and CONSENTED to their loss of Federation citizenship.

As to the idea that moving meant breaking up communities, by the 24th century what reason do we have to believe a community couldn't be moved en masse?

In theory, it should be possible. In theory, it's possible today. But reality has a nasty habit of getting in the way of theory. Moving people en masse is like trying to herd cats -- they inevitably don't want to go, fight, get lost, end up forced to move somewhere else, spread disease, get injured, etc. There's a reason forced relocation of entire nations is a crime against humanity.

And besides: Those communities have a right not to move. Period. No one else has a right to force them to move. Period. It's a fundamental violation of their right to self-determination. Period.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Sci

Apparently, Dorvan V was beyond the Demilitarised zone, deep in cardassian territory.

The cardassians brought military on the planet and starfleet didn't even pretend the cardassians didn't have the right to do so.
In the Demilitarised zone, the cardassians bringing such forces would equal a major diplomatic incident.

The situation of the Dorvan V colonists was also different - they could only stay if they renounced their citizenship; in the Demilitarised zone it is repeatedly established that the colonists are federation citizens.

 

[The Librarian]

Oh, come on. We're talking about the relocation of tiny number of people - certainly we never see anything even resembling a city, or even a town of more than a few thousand people - who had only been there for a generation, maybe two at most. It's not remotely comparable to any historical example of ethnic cleansing, especially since this is the result of a treaty to end a war where both sides had claimed the same territory and now they were smoothing out the borders to make them more rational and fair to both sides. If the colonists didn't want to be in Cardassian territory, the Federation offered to relocate them. I don't see why the Federation as a whole had to continue fighting just so that a few thousand colonists wouldn't be inconvenienced.

As for the Feds not intervening against the Dominion, we have no evidence at anyone but the actual Maquis were attacked. Also, the Federation was already preparing for war - attacking early, particularly if it's before they have working shields and with the wormhole open, would have resulted in the complete destruction of the Federation.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The Librarian

There were at least tens of thousand - most likely hundreds of thousands of colonists in the demilitarised zone.

The federation was killing them without trial, poisoning their colonies - this is a war crime even when you do it to you enemies, NOT your own people!

'Blaze of glory' makes it pretty clear that all federation colonies sympathetic to the maquis from the demilitarized zone were exterminated.

Your excuse for this is that, since they refused the offer to go, such treacherous/CRIMINAL behaviour becomes acceptable? Really?



At the time of 'blaze of glory' federation shields were reasonably effective against dominion polaron weapons - see Defiant's behaviour in a number of prior episodes for proof.

Indeed, in 'blaze of glory' the fededration had a much better position vis a vis the dominion than it had in 'call to arms':

The dominion brought THOUSANDS of ships, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of jem'hadar through the wormhole in the intervening time;
It reconstructerd the collapsed cardassian economy, building a base from which to support the war effort;
It made non-agression treaties with many powers, including the romulans and the tholians.

And what did the federation gained in the meantime?
It made that better shield aagainst polaron weapons and it increaded ship building.

The dominion profited MUCH MORE than the federation of the time between 'blaze of glory' and 'call to arms'.


The war started NOT when the federation had any advantage anymore, but when the dominion wanted it - they were destroying federation ships along the border in the episodes prior to 'call to arms'.

The federation not only betrayed its citizens by not interfering in 'blaze of glory', but strategically, their extreme appeasement borne out of a 'burry your head in the sand' mentality was completely IDIOTIC.
You would think that trying to blow up the bajjoran sun (killing BILLIONS) or massacring your citizens brings home the ideea that the other side is not interested in the least in peace. Well...apparently not; the federation is just so stupidly dense.

 

[Anwar]

Oh, they knew the Dominion wasn't interested in peace. But an early provocation would've just made them lose that much faster. When taking into consideration the trillions of lives within the Federation, you can't commit to war before you know you can actually fight even if it means a few thousand dying in the meantime. Because otherwise, you lose and those thousands who died just die anyways, only now they're joined by a few trillion more.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Anwar

"In 'blaze of glory' the fededration had a much better position vis a vis the dominion than it had in 'call to arms'"

For a detailed explanation, do READ my above post!