DS9: Right show for the wrong decade?

[RoJoHen]

I would love to see a Trek series on cable.

 

[BennyRussel]

In fact, they probably would explain the backstory a bit better:

The Cardassians annexed Bajor, they didn't conquer it. That means the legal Bajoran Government officially gave them the planet, it was totally "legal" (corruption/bribery/gun to the head dealings) which meant that the Bajoran Terrorists were primarily just folks who were always unhappy with the Cardassians being on Bajor and only later on did the common Bajorans join in.

They could even write in some of the common Bajorans blaming the rebels for making things bad enough that the Cardies were more brutal so the common Bajorans had to join the resistance, maybe even accusing them of doing this on purpose to "legitimize" their cause to the Interstellar Community for aid and recognition.

Now THIS in itself could have been a fascinating show. Showing a "voluntary" occupation of Bajor. The backroom deals, corruption, hubris and greed that would make such a thing possible and the struggle to rebel from the underground resistance all the way up.

Main characters such as Opaka, Winn, Shakaar, Kira, Ducat, Damar, Tain, Garak, Odo and adding Sisko to the mix as the Emissary and O'Brien as the Cardie-hating soldier/engineer.

 

[Gary7]

DS9 had the "luxury" of exploring its complex themes without the baggage we've acquired in the 21st century (and when I say "we" I mean, in general terms, Americans). If DS9 aired now, its characters would be viewed (and probably written) through the War on Terror lens, the Liberal-Conservative Lens, just to name a few. In short, DS9 wouldn't have had such a free hand to explore multiple sides of an issue - let alone be able to acknowledge legitimacy from each of those sides. The result would have been a watered-down approach (in terms of complexity) and the action and violence would have been ratcheted up to compensate.

+1, QFT. Very well put.

 

[MacLeod]

DS9 had the "luxury" of exploring its complex themes without the baggage we've acquired in the 21st century (and when I say "we" I mean, in general terms, Americans). If DS9 aired now, its characters would be viewed (and probably written) through the War on Terror lens, the Liberal-Conservative Lens, just to name a few. In short, DS9 wouldn't have had such a free hand to explore multiple sides of an issue - let alone be able to acknowledge legitimacy from each of those sides. The result would have been a watered-down approach (in terms of complexity) and the action and violence would have been ratcheted up to compensate.

I tend to agree with this, becuase although Terrrorism existed long before the 9-11 attacks. One thing appeared to chage after it Americans view towards terrorism.

Though to be fair in the set-up that existed in DSN, the Bajoran's would be more akin to freedom fighters than terrorist. After all Bajor was an occupied planet. To draw a parallel from History the Maquis in France during WWII. The Nazi's might consider them terrorist but the French would consider them Freedom fighters.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I think that in order to keep the moral high ground of the Bajorans, they'd have to have more defined and nobler rules of engagement than terrorists. Hearing the term now makes me wonder if the Bajorans terrorized civilians. Cardassian military targets are legitimate...but civilian targets are not. Kira's advice to Damar and Rusot not to worry about killing civilians would surely not stand these days.

I write a story that deals with a resistance movement, and I've delineated between freedom fighters and terrorists. As far as I am concerned, they are not the same thing.

 

[Ln X]

I think that in order to keep the moral high ground of the Bajorans, they'd have to have more defined and nobler rules of engagement than terrorists. Hearing the term now makes me wonder if the Bajorans terrorized civilians. Cardassian military targets are legitimate...but civilian targets are not. Kira's advice to Damar and Rusot not to worry about killing civilians would surely not stand these days.

I write a story that deals with a resistance movement, and I've delineated between freedom fighters and terrorists. As far as I am concerned, they are not the same thing.

The difference between freedom fighters and terrorists can get blurred as most terrorist organisations have agenda's to 'free' so-and-so bunch of people from say foreigners, or people of a different religion, and so terrorist organisations brand themselves as a group of 'freedom fighters' or fighting against a perceived tyranny. It's all a matter of opinion. But even freedom fighters got their hands dirty with collateral damage. With any kind of revolt or uprising or revolution or resistance, civilians are killed on both sides.

And beside's one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. It all comes down to opinion, beliefs and political ideology. Another thing is that even with an organisation or faction of 'freedom fighters', if the government (the freedom fighters were fighting against) got wind that these reactionaries did not kill civilians, then the government (assuming it is oppressive and tyrannical) would place civilians around military and strategic locations, or place low value military assets around areas of high-density populations.

That way civilians would die when the freedom fighters attacked and carried out raids, so the killing of civilians is unavoidable. Of course the freedom fighter's themselves may target the families of certain high-ranking military figures, or even just the common soldier's family and people who were working for the government, as revenge or to warn the general populace that to work with the government means a speedy death to both you and your family.

I think the whole idea that freedom fighters are all noble and heroes is a load of tosh. This isn't a nice or honourable business, this is about the usurpation of one ideology, one form of control over the other. And of course things stalemate and both sides get steadily nastier as the conflict drags on... What Kira said was spot on about being squeamish about civilian deaths, and she correctly said that you can't be a hero and a terrorist at the same time.

Even when the cause is good, 'freedom fighters' are not saints but ordinary people like you and me, prepared to kill others who are part of a system of tyranny.

 

[WarpCore]

There's no way Paramount would have made DS9 now, what-with Kira being referred to as a former terrorist and her helping the Cardies set up Terrorist Cells, etc.

IMO, that just means they wrote it wrong during a pre-9/11 world. Change the one word "terrorist" to "revolutionary" roughly a dozen times during the entire series, and it flies during either pre or post-9/11.

Or perhaps they wrote it right? The word terrorist only appears 52 times during the entire series... if I'm searching all transcripts, but I haven't doubled checked. They interchange terrorist, rebel, revolutionary, resistance or freedom fighter quite readily throughout DS9, and maybe so should we.

I also agree with Anwar. If DS9 was written today, they wouldn't have written stories about Kira being a terrorist, or Jemmy suicide bombers or any such thing.

Even watching DS9 today, I never associate Jem'Hadar suicide bombers with religious extremists or planes on 9/11. I see them as kamikaze attacks and link that to 1941. Now, if a handful of Jem'Hadar had commandeered a SF ship and rammed it into the station at some point...

As for saying the writers wouldn't do it now. How many times did Picard use the Enterprise as a battering ram during TNG? He does it barely a year after 9/11 in Nemesis. And in ST 2009 we have G. Kirk using his ship as a suicide weapon.

They could even write in some of the common Bajorans blaming the rebels for making things bad enough that the Cardies were more brutal so the common Bajorans had to join the resistance, maybe even accusing them of doing this on purpose to "legitimize" their cause to the Interstellar Community for aid and recognition.

Didn't they already? I seem to recall a few lines from one Bajoran to another that the resistance movement made things worse for everyone. I'm certain Dukat states his violence while station commander is partially due to needing a response to resistance activities.

And beside's one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. It all comes down to opinion, beliefs and political ideology.

Agreed. This will probably come off a little jaded, but imo it comes down to whomever wins and either is still alive to write the history or has the power to control and censor how it's written.

 

[Relayer1]

If it was made now it would have been canceled after season two. It wouldn't have had chance to grow into something great.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If it was made now, it couldn't be on broadcast. So it would be someplace like AMC or Showtime, and would have to be more focused and tougher-minded. No Ferengi comedies or playing baseball in the holosuite. It would probably be even better, because of the more stringent standards of cable dramas.

Or it would be on Skiffy and would be crap.

 

[Lord Garth]

DS9 is the right show because it was made in the wrong decade.

 

[Anwar]

If you want a show where the protagonists are terrorists/freedom fighters but exactly what it means to be a sympathetic terrorist (and what ends you might have to go to) is explored with proper depth go watch Blakes Seven. THAT show was ahead of its time.