Why does Cardassia feel entitled to Bajor?

[Relayer1]

As English with some ancestry from Cork, I think that the complex Irish situation is a poor and inaccurate analogy.

The Falklands is also complicated. Putting aside the BS that any mention of imperialism generates (especially and ironically from the USA - probably the biggest imperial power on the world stage at the moment), both Argentina and England have tenuous historical claims to the islands, which don't count for much.

The right to have freedom of self determination of THE INHABITANTS is the only real consideration, and they choose the U.K. Which is a pity, as I really would prefer to get rid of the barren, forsaken and hugely expensive islands...

 

[TerraNovan]

A better example is zimbawe, the white settlers moved in and farmed lands that weren't being used by the locals. When they were kicked out they felt the natives didn't respect the fact they farmed land when the natives weren't able to.

Taiwan is a horrible example, as bajor didn't considered itself the head of the cardassian union after kicking them out.

 

[Thor Damar]

Wasn't bajor an undeveloped back water, I'm sure this is a larger part of the issue than anything else. Bajor didn't just reject cardassia, it kicked them out took their tech, and worst of went to the federation. And lets not forget the amount of terrorism from the resistance killing millions.

Actually by all accounts Bajor was an advanced well developed civilization that had existed for countless centuries and had a rich artistic and spiritual culture. In fact it would seem that they had developed space travel years, decades or even centuries before the Cardassians or possibly any of the other major powers. The main reason why they didn't seem so 'advanced' to the other interstellar bodies was their self chosen isolationism deriving from the plentiful resources in the home system. So the only backward thing about the Bajorian people was their lack of exploratory drive...

The Resistance could not kill millions, they were too small and divided for that. (not to mention that they where, as a whole, more focused on guerrilla warfare than widespread civilian attacks. Which is taken to ridiculous heights in one of the Brave and the bold duology where a member of Orta's cell reminisces about blowing up an entire fleet of Galor class warships). It was slave labour ,reprisals and punishments handed out by the Cardassian state caused all those millions of deaths not the Bajorian fighters.

(which isn't to say that the Resistance didn't carry out those sorts of actions and it is something to be condemned but it still pales to the crimes of a state/Empire warring upon the people)

And I say the above as a Brit with both Cork and Kerry ancestry and a great grandfather whom fought againist the Empire. (there sure is a lot of us with Irish heritage here)

And to answer the OP question one of the main reason why so many Cardassians were obsessed with Bajor was territorial pride. Remember Damar stating that there where 'no minor planets in the Cardassian Union' or words to that effect? I'd say that there is a almost need to maintain hold of every scape of territory take by the Union in order to prevent the lost of those resources and the security that control brings.

The above probably applies more to the upper echelons of the Cardassian military than anywhere else.

 

[TheGodBen]

well done on splitting the reply to suit to answers.

when I made the reply Really ? it was combined with my answer in relation to the past not as a seperate answer.
Being Irish i am well aware of the situation.

to seperate them only serves to make it look like I was not aware of the referendums.


in relation to my analogy about britain and cardassia , I merely implied the might dictates in certain situations.

But why did you mention Northern Ireland specifically? Ireland as a whole is an example of a land that was dominated by a nearby power and exploited for much of its history. Northern Ireland on the other hand was a nation created in a misguided attempt to prevent a civil war, one where a lot of the damage was done by the Northern Irish themselves.

And then the colonial powers saw the error of their ways and left.

It wasn't so much realising they had made an error, but the rise of nationalism worldwide combined with a changed economic situation, particularly following the Great Depression and WWII, meant that colonialism was no longer profitable. Even then, some colonial powers still fought to maintain some of their colonies, such as the French-Algerian War.

And the former subjugated nations - political instability, civil wars, the occasional internecine slaughter or genocide, etc.
They got liberty - and, as it turned out, they thought they would handle it a LOT better than they did.

Talk about unexpected.
I guess history feels no need to be politically correct.

Europe was at the centre of two of the most violent and destructive wars in human history, including the most infamous case of genocide in modern times.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

And then the colonial powers saw the error of their ways and left.

It wasn't so much realising they had made an error, but the rise of nationalism worldwide combined with a changed economic situation, particularly following the Great Depression and WWII, meant that colonialism was no longer profitable. Even then, some colonial powers still fought to maintain some of their colonies, such as the French-Algerian War.

And the former subjugated nations - political instability, civil wars, the occasional internecine slaughter or genocide, etc.
They got liberty - and, as it turned out, they thought they would handle it a LOT better than they did.

Talk about unexpected.
I guess history feels no need to be politically correct.

Europe was at the centre of two of the most violent and destructive wars in human history, including the most infamous case of genocide in modern times.

Indeed it was; and yet, the XX century was the most peaceful in history (in Europe); closely followed by the XIX century.

Contrary to widely accepted dogma, genocide was quite common in human history (and not only 'small' genocides, that is).

As for wars - WW2 occupies 1st place only when it comes to the number of victims - 55 million; when it comes to the percentage of victims relative to the population, it's on place nr. 9 (the An Lushan Revolt occupies nr. 1)..
WW1 doesn't even make top ten - in either ranking.

As for retreating from the colonies - they were and remained quite profitable (war with an industrialized country/trade partner became non-profitable); it's just that liberal democracies - in ever larger numbers - chose not to continue the colonial wars in order to keep the colonies in check (contrary to the common practice throughout history).


Generally speaking, the XIX, XX centuries were dominated by 4 schools of thought - enlightenment, conservatism, nationalism and utopian ideologies (fascism, communism, France during the napoleonic wars, etc).

Liberal democracy, the child of enlightenment philosophy, is the most successful political system known to man when it comes to highly relevant criteria such as quality of life, equality of chances, peace, etc.
Which is why it was - and is - being copied, at least in part, in many cases in whole (with varying degrees of success) in other parts of the world.

 

[MacLeod]

Wasn't bajor an undeveloped back water, I'm sure this is a larger part of the issue than anything else. Bajor didn't just reject cardassia, it kicked them out took their tech, and worst of went to the federation. And lets not forget the amount of terrorism from the resistance killing millions.

Perhaps the Bajoran's thought that after finally kicking the Cardassian Occupation forces off their planet. It might be an idea to get a treaty with a power that was likely to respect them more.

Many weaker nations have allied with more powerful nations in order to protect themselves from aggressive powers.

 

[Worf'sParmach]

Maybe the Bajorans didn't have a flag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

 

[IntrepidMan]

Not always. Why did Britain feel entitled to rule India? Why did the United States feel entitled to conquer Indian territories in Central North America? Why did Belgium feel entitled to the Congo?

Not the best example, there. Belgium didn't feel entitled to the Congo, King Leopold II bought the Congo as a private property; the state only confiscated it when light was made of the rather peculiar way his men treated the natives.

As to the "why", the answer was simple: profit. That's all King Leopold II sought: more monies at any cost; for the rest of African colonies, it was either glory, money or a mix of both.

That's not my quote. In fact I agree with you; Belgium and the Congo are poor examples as like you say that was largely the work of one man--Leopold. Although it is interesting to think about potential connections between Leopold and Dukat, and whether Cardassia's desire to reconquer Bajor is really just Dukat's desire.

The Falklands is also complicated. Putting aside the BS that any mention of imperialism generates (especially and ironically from the USA - probably the biggest imperial power on the world stage at the moment), both Argentina and England have tenuous historical claims to the islands, which don't count for much.

The USA is the biggest imperial power? Oh please... Next you're going to say America is the greatest threat to world peace.

Taiwan is a horrible example, as bajor didn't considered itself the head of the cardassian union after kicking them out.

I mentioned China and Taiwan as an example of one country seemingly determined to conquer another. Obviously the Cardassia-Bajor relationship is nothing like China-Taiwan, and yet Cardassia is very China-like in its intent to conquer Bajor. Which leads to my question: why?

 

[JaxsBrokenHeart]

While the Cardassian interest in Bajor prior to and during the occupation has a number of reasons to it, including expansion, racism, and general desire for resources; the quasi-obsession afterwards might be rooted in the the Cardassian culture's reverence for the state and how Bajor's eventual freedom may have helped to disturb that.

Remember so many elements of Cardassia from their literature, court system, sciences, family structure, etc were tied into that devotion in some way or another. Not just as a cynical propaganda tool either, even those as knowledgeable as the Obsidian Order felt the same way.

But then the supposedly inferior Bajorans come a long, and not only to they provide problems as well as refuse to simply accept their place within the broader structure, after many years they essentially defy the will of the Cardassian Union.. and they win.

Yes it can be spun as a political decision achieved through pressure by the Federation and such, but for older and experienced Cardassians, it had to represent a failure on some level of the governmental power's ability and far more distressingly their reputation of moral righteousness. To paraphrase Dukat, not only did the Bajorans win, they proved they were right to oppose their occupiers to begin with.

Thus its not hard to imagine a nagging need to dominate Bajor again, to demonstrate that it was correct both practically and morally in its decisions about the Occupation. A feeling likely felt by both those high up wishing to maintain the state's appearance and right to power, and everyday citizens not wanting to acknowledge the possibility that inferior Bajorans proved that Cardassian citizens could have and potentially should have fought back against the state before.

 

[Ian Keldon]

A better example is zimbawe, the white settlers moved in and farmed lands that weren't being used by the locals. When they were kicked out they felt the natives didn't respect the fact they farmed land when the natives weren't able to.

Taiwan is a horrible example, as bajor didn't considered itself the head of the cardassian union after kicking them out.

Not to mention that Bajor was never the legitimate government of the CU. Taiwan was founded by the legitimate government of China exiled by Mao. Taiwan is in fact THE legitimate government for the Chinese, but no one has the stones to stand up to the mainlanders and make them accept that fact.

I think if you asked a Bajoran why the Cardassians are the way they are, you might get a sentiment close to this famous quote from another franchise:

Why does any advanced civilization seek to destroy a less advanced one? Because the land is strategically valuable, because there are resources that can be cultivated and exploited, but most of all - simply because they can. You have experienced much the same on your own world. There are humans for whom the words "never again" carry special meaning, as they do for us...

 

[Timo]

To paraphrase Dukat, not only did the Bajorans win, they proved they were right to oppose their occupiers to begin with.

Where are you paraphrasing from? That doesn't sound like Dukat at all (unless he was speaking of Cardassians originally).

Few characters in the show seem to believe that Bajoran resistance had anything to do with the Cardassian withdrawal anyway.

Remember so many elements of Cardassia from their literature, court system, sciences, family structure, etc were tied into that devotion in some way or another.

...Also, Cardassians apparently like to believe in the cyclic nature of things. No doubt, in the minds of many, a withdrawal from Bajor would only take place so that a second glorious conquest could be effected!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sonak]

A better example is zimbawe, the white settlers moved in and farmed lands that weren't being used by the locals. When they were kicked out they felt the natives didn't respect the fact they farmed land when the natives weren't able to.

Taiwan is a horrible example, as bajor didn't considered itself the head of the cardassian union after kicking them out.

Not to mention that Bajor was never the legitimate government of the CU. Taiwan was founded by the legitimate government of China exiled by Mao. Taiwan is in fact THE legitimate government for the Chinese, but no one has the stones to stand up to the mainlanders and make them accept that fact.

I think if you asked a Bajoran why the Cardassians are the way they are, you might get a sentiment close to this famous quote from another franchise:

Why does any advanced civilization seek to destroy a less advanced one? Because the land is strategically valuable, because there are resources that can be cultivated and exploited, but most of all - simply because they can. You have experienced much the same on your own world. There are humans for whom the words "never again" carry special meaning, as they do for us...

eh? Why is Taiwan the "legitimate government?" Kai-Shek was a corrupt autocrat not a small-d democrat, and the Communists won the Civil War.


By your argument, if a small band of Confederates from South Carolina had fled the South at the end of the Civil War and set up shop somewhere else, THEY would be the legitimate government of South Carolina, not whatever the Union-imposed state government currently was.

 

[Anwar]

To paraphrase Dukat, not only did the Bajorans win, they proved they were right to oppose their occupiers to begin with.

Where are you paraphrasing from? That doesn't sound like Dukat at all (unless he was speaking of Cardassians originally).

That speech he gave to Weyoun about why they shouldn't kill everyone on Earth when they conquer it. The best victory is to make your defeated enemies admit they were wrong to oppose you to begin with, that's ultimate domination.

 

[Sci]

eh? Why is Taiwan the "legitimate government?" Kai-Shek was a corrupt autocrat not a small-d democrat, and the Communists won the Civil War.

Kai-shek's government was legitimate insofar as it was the internationally-recognized government of all of China. Obviously it was illegitimate insofar as it was an unelected autocracy--an illegitimacy it later shared with Mao's government. But the fact that the government of the Republic of China was once the government of all of China is a legitimate point in explaining the unique concerns the People's Republic of China has for Taiwan.

By your argument, if a small band of Confederates from South Carolina had fled the South at the end of the Civil War and set up shop somewhere else, THEY would be the legitimate government of South Carolina, not whatever the Union-imposed state government currently was.

Well, no, because Mao's was the rebellion, not Chang Kai-shek's. Your counterfactual would require the Confederacy to have been the established government, and the Union to have been the rebellion.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I only read the last page so i don't know if this has been said.

I think part of Cardassia's obsesion with bajor is 1)Bajorans reached Cardassia long before Cardassians reached Bajor, long before they were an empire so I think the Cardassians felt they had something to prove, like a little brother trying to dominate his big brother. 2) the Cardassians faile dto break the will of the Bajorans which was a slap to their collective pride.

Lastly, I think Dukat was far more obsessed with Bajor than the whole of the Cardassian hierarchy. I think many of the Bajoran initiatives were actually spearheaded and championed by Dukat personally.

 

[Ian Keldon]

eh? Why is Taiwan the "legitimate government?" Kai-Shek was a corrupt autocrat not a small-d democrat, and the Communists won the Civil War.

Because I do not subscribe to the theory that moral legitimacy flows from the might of arms. Power may, but not legitimacy.

Chang Kai-Shek may have been an autocrat, corrupt, etc, but his government had superior moral legitimacy to that of Mao, as was proven by the atrocities committed over the following years by the Mao-ist government.

By your argument, if a small band of Confederates from South Carolina had fled the South at the end of the Civil War and set up shop somewhere else, THEY would be the legitimate government of South Carolina, not whatever the Union-imposed state government currently was.

Certainly. I've viewed the South as a land under occupation for many years. Secession was the legal right of the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the North had no legal justification for using force of arms to prevent their utilizing that right.

But that's getting deep into politics that might best be left for other venues.

 

[IntrepidMan]

^The South a land under occupation? You have got to be kidding me. It's been how many years since the Civil War? This is the 21st century. The country has moved on. We have other issues now.

While the Cardassian interest in Bajor prior to and during the occupation has a number of reasons to it, including expansion, racism, and general desire for resources; the quasi-obsession afterwards might be rooted in the the Cardassian culture's reverence for the state and how Bajor's eventual freedom may have helped to disturb that.

Remember so many elements of Cardassia from their literature, court system, sciences, family structure, etc were tied into that devotion in some way or another. Not just as a cynical propaganda tool either, even those as knowledgeable as the Obsidian Order felt the same way.

But then the supposedly inferior Bajorans come a long, and not only to they provide problems as well as refuse to simply accept their place within the broader structure, after many years they essentially defy the will of the Cardassian Union.. and they win.

Yes it can be spun as a political decision achieved through pressure by the Federation and such, but for older and experienced Cardassians, it had to represent a failure on some level of the governmental power's ability and far more distressingly their reputation of moral righteousness. To paraphrase Dukat, not only did the Bajorans win, they proved they were right to oppose their occupiers to begin with.

Thus its not hard to imagine a nagging need to dominate Bajor again, to demonstrate that it was correct both practically and morally in its decisions about the Occupation. A feeling likely felt by both those high up wishing to maintain the state's appearance and right to power, and everyday citizens not wanting to acknowledge the possibility that inferior Bajorans proved that Cardassian citizens could have and potentially should have fought back against the state before.

Very interesting point! Cardassian society is very much centered around the state. For Bajor to reject and humiliate state, the Cardassians must feel deeply wronged (not to mention the model the Resistance might serve for Cardassian dissidents).

 

[sonak]

eh? Why is Taiwan the "legitimate government?" Kai-Shek was a corrupt autocrat not a small-d democrat, and the Communists won the Civil War.

Kai-shek's government was legitimate insofar as it was the internationally-recognized government of all of China. Obviously it was illegitimate insofar as it was an unelected autocracy--an illegitimacy it later shared with Mao's government. But the fact that the government of the Republic of China was once the government of all of China is a legitimate point in explaining the unique concerns the People's Republic of China has for Taiwan.

By your argument, if a small band of Confederates from South Carolina had fled the South at the end of the Civil War and set up shop somewhere else, THEY would be the legitimate government of South Carolina, not whatever the Union-imposed state government currently was.

Well, no, because Mao's was the rebellion, not Chang Kai-shek's. Your counterfactual would require the Confederacy to have been the established government, and the Union to have been the rebellion.

your distinctions seem to be kind of arbitrary, as any ones that don't involve democratic legitimacy tend to be. So... Kai-Shek's government was once upon a time generations ago recognized as the legitimate government. That's nice, so what?

As for the Confederacy it WAS an established, functioning government and secession was voted on(sure a third of the people in the South weren't involved in the political process, but if that makes it a sham democracy, so does denying women the right to vote in the Union North.) It only became a non-functional one through military defeat.

And... I'm struggling to connect this to the topic. Um, was Cardassia's occupation ever legally recognized by the UFP or other powers in the area?

 

[MacLeod]

I suspect the Federation might apply some political pressaure, but in general regarded it as an Internal matter.

Is there anything to suggest that the Federation even knew of the Bajoran's prior to the Cardassian Occupation?

 

[Sci]

Certainly. I've viewed the South as a land under occupation for many years. Secession was the legal right of the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the North had no legal justification for using force of arms to prevent their utilizing that right.

The problem with this argument is that the Constitution is unclear on whether or not secession is a legal right of the states. If the South were serious about pursuing a legal justification for secession, they would have taken it to the Supreme Court before unilaterally seceding, and not have attacked Fort Sumter whilst in the middle of negotiations with the Lincoln Administration over its fate. By any reasonable standard, the South was the aggressor in the Civil War.

Besides, there's also the question of whether or not the majority of people in the South actually wanted to secede. After all, the only people who had the right to vote were white males -- hardly the majority of the South's population. Had there been a democratic referendum on secession made with universal suffrage, the pro-secession argument would be much stronger. But, of course, that would require the South to have freed the people it kept in slavery -- and preserving slavery was the very reason the Southern aristocracy pushed for secession in the first place.

* * *

Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't think the United States is an imperial power is deluding themselves. Just ask all those Qatari protestors being killed by American guns.

Consider the fact that the U.S.'s core territories were conquered from their indigenous inhabitants; that it still holds colonial possessions such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.; that it props up numerous governments who obey its whims such as Saudi Arabia, Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship, the Qatari government, etc.; that it has client states like Israel; that it has launched a war of aggression and conquest against Iraq less than ten years ago with the intent of putting in a puppet government that would benefit U.S. business interests; that it routinely violates sovereign states' airspace in the pursuit of a futile effort to kill terrorism itself into defeat; that it maintains a vast planetary network of military bases, whose inhabitants are held immune from the laws of the nominally "sovereign" states in which those bases are located; the list goes on.

Read The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson, or Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, or A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.