Because the Cardassians were such moral and good people who would never violate the treaty.
And too stubborn to move away from their colonies? I suppose you think the concept of forced relocation is a good thing?
Star Trek : Deep Space Nine's Maquis Arc
- Thread starter Photon
- Start date
Because the Cardassians were such moral and good people who would never violate the treaty.
And too stubborn to move away from their colonies? I suppose you think the concept of forced relocation is a good thing?
Given that in the end both sides violated the treaty, it's a little facetious to play up the "immoral Cardassians" angle. Not to mention racist to categorize an entire people in such a manner. I also couldn't help but note that several of the events you cited above to illustrate the immorality of the Cardassians occurred before the treaty was signed.
Nobody forced the settlers to relocate, but the settlers were damn well aware of what was going on, and in an age of replicators, the whole "OMG I have to leave my home" argument strikes me as much less substantive than in the current day. They -chose- to live under Cardassian rule, and as you made such a point of illustrating, they surely must have known what they were in for.
In any event, even if I supported the Maquis engaging in acts of self-defense that nevertheless ran against the policies they'd chosen to live under, I would have withdrawn my support when they started engaging in biological warfare. If you want your noble little protest group to gain supporters, engaging in blatant terrorism isn't the way to do it.
Nobody forced the settlers to relocate, but the settlers were damn well aware of what was going on, and in an age of replicators, the whole "OMG I have to leave my home" argument strikes me as much less substantive than in the current day. They -chose- to live under Cardassian rule, and as you made such a point of illustrating, they surely must have known what they were in for.
In any event, even if I supported the Maquis engaging in acts of self-defense that nevertheless ran against the policies they'd chosen to live under, I would have withdrawn my support when they started engaging in biological warfare. If you want your noble little protest group to gain supporters, engaging in blatant terrorism isn't the way to do it.
Wow, calling me a racist because I said the Cardassians(it being completely obvious I'm referring to their military/government/not much of a difference between the two) couldn't be trusted? Did you even read my second to last post citing a number of examples of their duplicity? I'll have you know the Cardassians -were- a tragic race on so many levels, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it to themselves in the end.
And your example of "they have replicators, so they can move" is a grand example of missing the point. It's forced relocation of civillian population to appease a hostile power. They didn't -choose- to live under Cardassian rule, some Federation diplomat who had never even been near the border chose to give their homes away to the Cardassians. Then the Cardassians start brutalizing them, and everyone's oh so suprised that they rise up? I suppose you'd have defended Stalin's forced relocation of the Germans and everyone else in eastern Europe too?
No one said they were a "noble protest group." In the day and age of heavy industrialization and weapons that can wipe out entire armies, you actually expect a smaller group without an industry and a minimum of conventional weapons to fight a conventional war? The last 100 years of our own history should point to that, however distasteful it may be, terrorism is an effective weapon against an occupying force. Even TNG called the Irish Republican Army as a case of succesful terrorism. I suppose you think the Bajorians were out of line to resist the Cardassians too?
If they peacefully protested, the Federation already flat out said they don't care, and the Cardassians were already attacking them. So that's not going to work in this scenario. I will agree with you that Eddington crossed the line when he started using biogenic weapons. Not like Sisko was any better though. Him using trilithium to destroy a planet is like a US captain firing a tactical nuke at an Arab village suspected of holding an Al-Qaida cell.
Sisko and Eddington should have been sharing a cell.Except Sisko didn't destroy a planet; he rendered it uninhabitable to humans, in effect balancing the scales that Eddington upset.
If you're going to take umbrage at being called a racist after you referred to Cardassians as immoral without specifying any specific subgroup, might I suggest being more clear next time around?
I certainly did read your examples, and as I noted, many of them occurred -before the treaty was signed-.
The settlers faced an unfortuate decision, but technically (and yes, the devil is in the details) they were not "forced to relocate". They -could- relocate, or they -could- continue living where they were with the understanding that they would now be administered by the Cardassians. I thought this was quite clearly laid out in "Preemptive Strike".
Yes, it sucks to be one of those settlers, but in all likelihood they chose to settle on the doorstep of a hostile power to begin with, and it can't have ultimately been -that- much of a shock that a scenario like this -might- happen at that point.
In the city I live in there's an airport with a number of houses located near it. Everyone who moves into any of those houses is well aware that they live near an airport and that they may be required to move at some point so that the airport may expand, with not a huge amount of notice. That said, of course they get paid for it, but I doubt anyone thinks the Federation would "force" settlers to relocate without providing them with the resources to do so comfortably.
Would you consider it preferable if a new war with the Cardassians had erupted as opposed to these settlers being faced with an uncomfortable choice? Heck, not all that different from the position of the Baku in "Insurrection".
Bringing up the Bajorans is a false analogy. We're not talking about giving Earth to the Cardassians.
If you're going to take umbrage at being called a racist after you referred to Cardassians as immoral without specifying any specific subgroup, might I suggest being more clear next time around?
I certainly did read your examples, and as I noted, many of them occurred -before the treaty was signed-.
The settlers faced an unfortuate decision, but technically (and yes, the devil is in the details) they were not "forced to relocate". They -could- relocate, or they -could- continue living where they were with the understanding that they would now be administered by the Cardassians. I thought this was quite clearly laid out in "Preemptive Strike".
Yes, it sucks to be one of those settlers, but in all likelihood they chose to settle on the doorstep of a hostile power to begin with, and it can't have ultimately been -that- much of a shock that a scenario like this -might- happen at that point.
In the city I live in there's an airport with a number of houses located near it. Everyone who moves into any of those houses is well aware that they live near an airport and that they may be required to move at some point so that the airport may expand, with not a huge amount of notice. That said, of course they get paid for it, but I doubt anyone thinks the Federation would "force" settlers to relocate without providing them with the resources to do so comfortably.
Would you consider it preferable if a new war with the Cardassians had erupted as opposed to these settlers being faced with an uncomfortable choice? Heck, not all that different from the position of the Baku in "Insurrection".
Bringing up the Bajorans is a false analogy. We're not talking about giving Earth to the Cardassians.
That's exactly what Eddington did. He used a biogenic agent that's harmful to Cardassians so the Maquis could claim the planet. Sisko used a trilithium compound harmful to humans. That's criminal, both of them. Sisko shouldn't have been able to get away with that. Unless you think in both the planets Eddington and Sisko bioattacked, every single person had a spaceship or access to one that they could evacuate an entire planet full of thousands, if not millions of people in the window of a few hours? Unlikely.
There was an armistice signed before TNG even started. So the war wasn't active. Yes, the Cardassians violated that armistice in Ensign Ro -destroying- a Federation colony, to try and get the Feds to help them against the Bajorians. Chain of Command was during the final negotiated peace. Even while they were negotiating they were planning to sieze Minos Korva as leverage. The rest occured after the treaty was signed. I find it absurd how you can sit there and say the Cardassians were in the right.
Comparing living near an airport and having your property forcfully bought to living in a colony ceded to a foreign nation and then having them sieze your land and kill you if you refuse? Really? To your airport, I'd argue that that's an infringement of liberties too compelling you to sell if they decide the want to exand. But to use that to argue in defense of forced relocation or die if you don't?
So it's their fault for living on a planet on the Federation border? A planet Starfleet promised to protect? I suppose it's the children's fault for being born there too? By all accounts some of those colonies were there for a number of generations as some Maquis on Voyager describe growing up on these colonies. That technical term for that is victim blaming.
Your point about the new war... it was coming. The Cardassians were going to force it. During the armistice they attacked the Federation to advance their goals. During the negotiations they fully planned to sieze a disputed planet. After the negotiations they used strongarm tactics when it suited them. The Cardassian Union wasn't a peaceful empire. They were expansionist and conquerors. They proved that solidly when they joined the Dominion. Even in the books the new democratic government is having a hard time keeping the hardliner elements in check.
A false analogy with the Bajorians? How so? None of the Maquis lived on Earth. Earth wasn't their home. It was those worlds on the border. No we're not talking about giving Earth to the Cardassians, we're talking about those colonies. With the people there who formed the Maquis. Comparing the Bajorian Occupation to them is certainly valid. Kira made it more than once. To say otherwise is just dodging a point that makes you feel uncomfortable.
Wow, calling me a racist because I said the Cardassians(it being completely obvious I'm referring to their military/government/not much of a difference between the two) couldn't be trusted? Did you even read my second to last post citing a number of examples of their duplicity? I'll have you know the Cardassians -were- a tragic race on so many levels, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it to themselves in the end.
And your example of "they have replicators, so they can move" is a grand example of missing the point. It's forced relocation of civillian population to appease a hostile power. They didn't -choose- to live under Cardassian rule, some Federation diplomat who had never even been near the border chose to give their homes away to the Cardassians. Then the Cardassians start brutalizing them, and everyone's oh so suprised that they rise up? I suppose you'd have defended Stalin's forced relocation of the Germans and everyone else in eastern Europe too?
No one said they were a "noble protest group." In the day and age of heavy industrialization and weapons that can wipe out entire armies, you actually expect a smaller group without an industry and a minimum of conventional weapons to fight a conventional war? The last 100 years of our own history should point to that, however distasteful it may be, terrorism is an effective weapon against an occupying force. Even TNG called the Irish Republican Army as a case of succesful terrorism. I suppose you think the Bajorians were out of line to resist the Cardassians too?
If they peacefully protested, the Federation already flat out said they don't care, and the Cardassians were already attacking them. So that's not going to work in this scenario. I will agree with you that Eddington crossed the line when he started using biogenic weapons. Not like Sisko was any better though. Him using trilithium to destroy a planet is like a US captain firing a tactical nuke at an Arab village suspected of holding an Al-Qaida cell.
Nope, he drove out the ppl on the Maquis planet. Sisko showed strength
I'm more or less satisfied. Ironically enough, I think the best "closure" the arc got was on Voyager, when Chakotay solemnly brought the news to B'ellana that the Maquis were no more...and they share a sad moment over this.
Still--I'm in agreement with those who wanted to see more of Cal Hudson--just one more episode, at least. Have him in that last one, with Eddington...so he can say goodbye to his old friend, before he dies in battle.
As for Tom...well, Kira promised to get him out, some day. And a promise is a promise. We should'v seen it.
Still--I'm in agreement with those who wanted to see more of Cal Hudson--just one more episode, at least. Have him in that last one, with Eddington...so he can say goodbye to his old friend, before he dies in battle.
As for Tom...well, Kira promised to get him out, some day. And a promise is a promise. We should'v seen it.
Regardless, you made a generalization about a race, when there are obviously exceptions (even if you are referring to the government/military).
And with regards to the "they did it to themselves," Dukat basically unilaterally allied the Cardassians with the Dominion, and the remains of the government/military and the civilian population had no choice but to follow, or reach a destruction far worse than 809 million deaths.
Keep in mind that the Treaty appeased the UFP as well as the Cardassian Union. The UFP and Cardassians constantly had conflicts that could escalate into war, and the treaty set rigid guidelines about what they could or could not do, not to mention it satisfied both sides.
Also, I don't see why forced relocations are inherently immoral. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Josef Stalin would agree with that.
Maybe.... but I don't see the relevance.
Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Osama Bin Laden would probably agree that shooting yourself in the foot is unpleasant.
Maybe.... but I don't see the relevance.
Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Osama Bin Laden would probably agree that shooting yourself in the foot is unpleasant.
You don't see the relevance of the man who drew lines on a map in eastern Europe and moved people of any ethnic background on the wrong side of the line against their will across it or if they protested to Siberia?
The point I'm making, which seems to be missed, is commiting crimes against the minority to satisfy the needs of the majority is still a crime and not morally justifiable.
I'd imagine even the Vulcans would agree with that.
eh, that's kind of an absolutist stance. Property rights are important, but they don't trump all other considerations. If the choice is between having boundaries that promote peace or inconveniencing a small group of colonists, I think peace is more important.
Or is eminent domain the greatest injustice you can conceive of?
This.
A lot of things from the UFP constitution are borrowed from the US constitution, and I don't think the fifth amendment is any exception.
Also, I still don't see how these relocations aren't morally justifiable! Your rebuttal thus far has been that Stalin might think that this is ethically sound as well, and that's irrelevant! Two completely different scenarios, as these relocations have no other purpose but to appease the common good.
Again, as Spock (A Vulcan, mind you
) put it "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
I'm mostly happy with the way it was handled. I would have liked to have seen Cal Hudson again, and I was never convinced by the explanation for Eddington's reasons for joining the Maquis (though his episodes were very good). But overall, yeah I liked what they did.
This.
A lot of things from the UFP constitution are borrowed from the US constitution, and I don't think the fifth amendment is any exception.
Also, I still don't see how these relocations aren't morally justifiable! Your rebuttal thus far has been that Stalin might think that this is ethically sound as well, and that's irrelevant! Two completely different scenarios, as these relocations have no other purpose but to appease the common good.
Again, as Spock (A Vulcan, mind you
And as I said, even a ruthless person could apply that quote and justify say... a forced relocation. That doesn't make it moral, just or right.
The Cardassians got to annex all these Federation worlds. The Federation gave them away in exchange for peace. Small problem though... the Cardassians weren't interested in peace. During the armistice they destroyed a Federation colony to try and blame the Bajorians and get Federation help against them. During the peace treaty negotiations they were going to sieze Minos Korva. After the treaty was signed they attacked both DS9 and the USS Enterprise(both series we saw) at least once when it suited their immediate advantage. Who in their right mind could think they're honoring the so called peace treaty?
So the Maquis colonists themselves, since some of the Voyager Maquis mentioned they were born and grew up on those colonies, they'd been there at least 30-40 years, likely more. So it's not like this was a temporary thing, their families, and lives were invested in those places. The Federation basically said they didn't care, get out. The Cardassians said get out or we kill you, and people were really surprised when they started fighting back?
You can belittle the Maquis all you want, the Federation from their comfy offices on Earth certainly did. It's easy to look down on an oppressed people's plight who don't see things the way the majority do, when it's not happening to you.
By the way, how did that peace treaty with Cardassia turn out anyways? The one which the Federation sold out it's own people for? Oh yeah, they joined the Dominion and launched the largest war in Federation history. So yeah.. "peace at all costs" sure worked well.
R. Star said:
So what, in your opinion, constitutes a moral, just or right action? If the Federation had backed their own colonists all the way and forced a harsher set of terms on the peace treaty, would that have been moral, just and right? Would it have mattered what their motivations were? For example, what if the top members of the Federation were pursuing an expansionist, Human-nationalist policy in order to colonise as many worlds as possible and expand the borders of the Federation, would their backing of the colonists have been as praiseworthy in such a scenario?
It doesn't make sense to go with a wholly deontological ethic in this case, nor does it make sense to go with an entirely consequentialist one. It is possible to commit an entirely monstrous action 'for the good of the many', just as it is possible to commit entirely monstrous actions 'just following orders' or by following your own code too rigidly.
Meh.
Can you really call them 'oppressed' when they entered a disputed region of space by choice and then refused to leave it? If Picard's actions in dealing with the Dorvan colonists were any kind of precedent, the Federation gave the colonists every option possible: stay where you are and live under Cardassian rule, or leave and continue with the Federation. It was hardly a forced relocation which resulted in that case.
R. Star said:
In the UFP's defence, the Cardassian-abetted Dominion invasion of the AQ was an unforeseen consequence - and the Maquis were as much to blame for that as the Federation were. Though, for that conflict, ultimately no one was as much to blame as Dukat was.
