The Maquis or the Federation?

[Ian Keldon]

You are happy where you are.

And that's what you go to a war over, and get thousands killed? Shame on you!

The proper response is to write a scathing letter in the local newspaper, or go to the pub, get drunk and complain to your pint until it appears to start listening. Not to start shooting at people.

I mean last I hear on the subject they weren't federation citizens any more.

That never happened. In "Journey's End", a bunch of colonists who definitely weren't Maquis abandoned their UFP citizenship and were never heard of again. In the remaining episodes describing the colonists at the Cardassian border, a bunch of colonists started shooting at stuff but never had the guts to stop being UFP citizens and reaping the benefits; when this murderous scum was finally wiped out in "Blaze of Glory", Eddington expressed anguish that they had been on the verge of declaring independence from the UFP, but never got around to it.

Timo Saloniemi

Never mind that they were responding to Cardassian attacks, right Timo? They should have just let themselves be murdered in their beds by Cardassian terrorists in the name of "peace".

Even Nechayev didn't buy that.

“Believe me Captain, if I lived that close to the Cardassians, I'd sleep with a phaser under my pillow too."

The Maquis were right in there cause. The Federation had no right to just give away those colonies without atleast asking what the people who life there think about it.

Actually, the Federation had every right.

And if you recall from the TNG episode which established the Maquis as a concept, the colonists WERE asked about it - and it was their bloody idea to stay in the DMZ in the first place! They knew full well that they would be living under Cardassian rule. They insisted on it!

No, they were summarily TOLD what was going to happen, despite their protests. The Federation never took their rights or desires into consideration when crafting the treaty.

It's like if the US suddenly ceeded Texas back to Mexico to settle some dispute and simply ordered the Texans to move out.

Do you think they would take that laying down?

No. Nor should they.

The colonists are quite free to feel "angry" or "not happy" or whatever about the situation. If they decide to start an armed rebellion over it, their homes deserve to burn brightly.

Your fascism is showing again, Timo. The first duty of ANY government is to protect the lives, rights and property of it's citizens against foreign aggression.

What happened to sense of proportion? In the Trek universe, these people belong to a mental hospital. In our universe, they would be jailed for years, and even if their territories were later reacquired by their native country, the lunatics who had served their sentences would hopefully be prevented from trying to benefit from their crimes by banning them from ever getting that land back.

Or they would be hailed as great national heroes if they succeeded, and become known by names like the Founding Fathers.

people deserve to die and be brutalized because they stand up for themselves

That's just one step removed from people murdering their own female relatives because a "principle" must be upheld.

Standing up for themselves, indeed - a more selfish act could not be imagined. The reasons for staying are ridiculous, the obstacles to leaving nonexistent, and what is gained by resistance? Far less than nothing, as the stupidity dictates the loss of everything that could be saved by walking away. These testosterone-drunk men yearning for a fight are raping their own wives there, strangling their own daughters, mutilating their own goldfish and mashing up their precious butterfly collections, in addition to burning their own crops.

The Maquis really fought for the goals of the Central Command, so that makes them doubly the traitors to their homes and ideals. Was there something in the groundwater that gave them fractional IQs? Perhaps Cardassia had started the poisoning campaign earlier than we thought?

Timo Saloniemi

Ok, now I know either you are trolling or have one sick mind (or both).

Pack up your stuff...I have just decreed YOU don't need to have and live wherever it is you do. See how YOU like having your property and life stolen from you.

 

[Mage]

the Federation.


Peace trumps some random pieces of land.


And in the 24th century, where your "home" is just doesn't really matter. The UFP is a utopia where all your basic needs are provided for and you can work as whatever you want.

It's not like now where relocation might mean having to find a new job, a new house, etc.



The Maquis "cause" was just silly.

Silly? These people had made lives for themselves there. If you were suddenly told that the home you lived in was going to be taken from you, the home where you are happy and want to spend your life, you don't just say 'well that's just super, where do I sign up?'. Even if your government was going to pay for a new house, give you a job and feed you. You are happy where you are.

The Maquis were right in there cause. The Federation had no right to just give away those colonies without atleast asking what the people who life there think about it. You talk about Utopia (and as Sisko said, only the coreworlds have real Utopia, the colonies still have to struggle to maintain themselves). In a Utopian society, everybody matters. No one is forced into doing anything they don't want. So by forcing to settlers into abandoning their homes, the Federation is basicly showing their true colors.

Perhaps the attitude of doing what you are told works for Starfleet officers, but a civilian will struggle with that sort of forced relocation. Hell, even Starfleet officers saw how wrong it was and decided to join up.

1. Yes I'd be fine with moving, if we're talking in the context of a 24th century society where my needs are provided for and I'd be provided with a new home, and if it meant peace. Some random piece of property isn't worth a war. (I realize that it didn't exactly bring peace here, but I mean hypothetical or potential peace)

2. The Federation had EVERY right to do what they did. They're a democracy whose legitimately elected leaders made a legal treaty with another government, and I assume the treaty had broad support outside of that small minority of colonists.


A free society doesn't mean that nobody ever has to do anything they don't want to. That's more like anarchy.

Anarchy is a misunderstood concept. Literally, it means nothing more and nothing less then not believing in the benefits of a single ruler or rulingbody. End of story. All the other horror stories connected to anarchy are the result of punk teenagers in the (mostly) the UK, who had no sense of identity and used a misinterpreted version of anarchy as something to rally behind, thinking it ment they could plunder, riot and be violent. That's not what anarchy is.

And just because leaders are chosen by the people, doesn't automatically mean that all there actions are just and right. Just look at history to see how that has worked out so well over the centuries.

And honoustly people, some of the reactions of people in this thread.... It's just and right that these colonists were burned for not listening to their government?? That's not really the message of understanding and having respect for others and their opinions that Trek is teaching us.

 

[Mage]

Some random piece of property isn't worth a war.

Isn't that basicly what happened with the war for independence in the United States? When the colonies said we want to be independant? When England said no? And then the colonists and England went to war? Over a random piece of property...?

Not trying to start a flame-war here, just playing advocate to the devil. But it seems a bit weird that some people are judging the Maquis for something that other leaders or groups of rebels have been praised for in the past.

 

[Jono]

Governments tend to have provisions for resuming private land, so its questionable that the Federation had no right to hand over planets to the Cardassians. Not to mention that these planets were in a disputed region, which brings in the question whether the Federation or the Cardassians had the right to settle on some of these planets at all.

I feel sorry for those who where negative impacted by the treaty, and maybe the Federation did give up too much in the Treaty. In the end the Federation was looking to end the risk of a restart of a war against the Cardassians while at the time there was instability in the Klingon Empire, the Romulan Star Empire had returned to prominence and was throwing its weight around, and Borg had also wandered in, destroyed a colony, dozens of ships and nearly took Earth. So the few in the DMZ were sacrificed for the greater security of many.

 

[starburst]

But would you want to give up your home, I mean some of us might be willing to even if begrudgingly, but some who have spent years building a life on those colonies would be far less likely to want to up sticks and move (and going back to my analogy they had every reason to, the Cardassians are hardly Canadian or Mexican!)

I do love my home, but if I was presented with a good enough reason for moving, I'd take it. I certainly wouldn't become a terrorist against the government. In the end, a home is four walls and a ceiling surrounding all your stuff. Certainly not worth armed rebellion.

I wasnt advocating terrorism, only that people wouldnt be happy and may choose to say...not every colonist which decided to upsticks behind will have become a member of the Maquis. Some of them may have even gotten on fairly well with their new Cardassain overlords, at least until the Dominion War broke out.

 

[Timo]

Never mind that they were responding to Cardassian attacks, right Timo?

That's really mature... "He started it! I have the right! I have the right!"

Your fascism is showing again, Timo.[..]Or they would be hailed as great national heroes if they succeeded, and become known by names like the Founding Fathers.

Yes, yes. Sieg Heil and all that - Iron Crosses to everybody! Killing is brave and bold and walking away is non-Aryan! And we hav teh Rigth!

Pack up your stuff...I have just decreed YOU don't need to have and live wherever it is you do. See how YOU like having your property and life stolen from you.

What property? You told me to pack "my stuff" - ergo, I still have it. And I definitely am walking away with my life.

So I happen to change address. Big deal. You expect me to come and rape your wife and eat your children for that? Fat chance, pervert!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[starburst]

Never mind that they were responding to Cardassian attacks, right Timo?

That's really mature... "He started it! I have the right! I have the right!"

With that logic you could say that the response to Pear Harbour or 9/11 was immature...parties in each instance were attacked and decided to respond.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

No, they were summarily TOLD what was going to happen, despite their protests. The Federation never took their rights or desires into consideration when crafting the treaty.

Watch "Journey's End" again. The colonists specifically requested to stay in the DMZ and live under Cardassian rule, and they were allowed to do this. It was their idea. The Federation wanted to move them, but was persuaded not to.

The actual signing of the peace treaty was not done with the colonists' consent, but it didn't need to be. It was done because the Federation had this thing about, you know, not wanting to go to war with Cardassia ever again. Given this, the opinion of a few hundred wannabe-revolutionaries just doesn't seem quite so important.

 

[Romulus Prime]

The actual signing of the peace treaty was not done with the colonists' consent, but it didn't need to be. It was done because the Federation had this thing about, you know, not wanting to go to war with Cardassia ever again. Given this, the opinion of a few hundred wannabe-revolutionaries just doesn't seem quite so important.

And look where it got them. Fake peace is Fake, and letting an obviously aggressive faction have territory as a concession for NON-aggression basically empowered the known bully in that corner of space.

Way to go, Feds.

 

[sonak]

Silly? These people had made lives for themselves there. If you were suddenly told that the home you lived in was going to be taken from you, the home where you are happy and want to spend your life, you don't just say 'well that's just super, where do I sign up?'. Even if your government was going to pay for a new house, give you a job and feed you. You are happy where you are.

The Maquis were right in there cause. The Federation had no right to just give away those colonies without atleast asking what the people who life there think about it. You talk about Utopia (and as Sisko said, only the coreworlds have real Utopia, the colonies still have to struggle to maintain themselves). In a Utopian society, everybody matters. No one is forced into doing anything they don't want. So by forcing to settlers into abandoning their homes, the Federation is basicly showing their true colors.

Perhaps the attitude of doing what you are told works for Starfleet officers, but a civilian will struggle with that sort of forced relocation. Hell, even Starfleet officers saw how wrong it was and decided to join up.

1. Yes I'd be fine with moving, if we're talking in the context of a 24th century society where my needs are provided for and I'd be provided with a new home, and if it meant peace. Some random piece of property isn't worth a war. (I realize that it didn't exactly bring peace here, but I mean hypothetical or potential peace)

2. The Federation had EVERY right to do what they did. They're a democracy whose legitimately elected leaders made a legal treaty with another government, and I assume the treaty had broad support outside of that small minority of colonists.


A free society doesn't mean that nobody ever has to do anything they don't want to. That's more like anarchy.

Anarchy is a misunderstood concept. Literally, it means nothing more and nothing less then not believing in the benefits of a single ruler or rulingbody. End of story. All the other horror stories connected to anarchy are the result of punk teenagers in the (mostly) the UK, who had no sense of identity and used a misinterpreted version of anarchy as something to rally behind, thinking it ment they could plunder, riot and be violent. That's not what anarchy is.

And just because leaders are chosen by the people, doesn't automatically mean that all there actions are just and right. Just look at history to see how that has worked out so well over the centuries.

And honoustly people, some of the reactions of people in this thread.... It's just and right that these colonists were burned for not listening to their government?? That's not really the message of understanding and having respect for others and their opinions that Trek is teaching us.

So your position is that anytime a small minority of citizens disagree with the decisions of a legitimate, democratic government, that they have the right to violently resist that government and wage war? How would you ever have a functioning society? In a democracy, on any given policy you have a number of people who disagree with the current one. If they took up arms every time they felt they had a cause, you'd have chaos.

And again, it wasn't like the UFP was being absurd or tyrannical here. Making some minor border modifications/swaps in the interest of long-term peace is certainly defensible and reasonable.

 

[DonIago]

^^You're right, if the Federation doesn't have absolute faith in the parties with which they're considering signing treaties, they should refuse to do so at all. And if war results? Well hell, that's so much better than an imperfect peace.

 

[Mage]

1. Yes I'd be fine with moving, if we're talking in the context of a 24th century society where my needs are provided for and I'd be provided with a new home, and if it meant peace. Some random piece of property isn't worth a war. (I realize that it didn't exactly bring peace here, but I mean hypothetical or potential peace)

2. The Federation had EVERY right to do what they did. They're a democracy whose legitimately elected leaders made a legal treaty with another government, and I assume the treaty had broad support outside of that small minority of colonists.


A free society doesn't mean that nobody ever has to do anything they don't want to. That's more like anarchy.

Anarchy is a misunderstood concept. Literally, it means nothing more and nothing less then not believing in the benefits of a single ruler or rulingbody. End of story. All the other horror stories connected to anarchy are the result of punk teenagers in the (mostly) the UK, who had no sense of identity and used a misinterpreted version of anarchy as something to rally behind, thinking it ment they could plunder, riot and be violent. That's not what anarchy is.

And just because leaders are chosen by the people, doesn't automatically mean that all there actions are just and right. Just look at history to see how that has worked out so well over the centuries.

And honoustly people, some of the reactions of people in this thread.... It's just and right that these colonists were burned for not listening to their government?? That's not really the message of understanding and having respect for others and their opinions that Trek is teaching us.

So your position is that anytime a small minority of citizens disagree with the decisions of a legitimate, democratic government, that they have the right to violently resist that government and wage war? How would you ever have a functioning society? In a democracy, on any given policy you have a number of people who disagree with the current one. If they took up arms every time they felt they had a cause, you'd have chaos.

And again, it wasn't like the UFP was being absurd or tyrannical here. Making some minor border modifications/swaps in the interest of long-term peace is certainly defensible and reasonable.

I believe that if you want to come across as a government in which all parties are taken into consideration, you can't just give away territory for the greater good. That way, you are in essence betraying the principales in which that government was based. The Federation believes that EVERYONE has a right to live a happy life. By forcing people to move out of their homes, you are not letting them live the life they want.
I can understand how you say you could wake away from your home, your planet, your friends, your life. And some of the colonists did as you would. Some didn't.

The colonists were given a choice, move or life under Cardassian rule. They were never asked if they were oke with the Federation giving their homes away.

And that's how we come to Sisko's comment in "The Maquis". How it's very easy for people living in actual paradise to ignore how life is in the colonies. That these people were not living in the same kind of luxury that the core worlds of the Federation have. They chose to go out there, and create a world instead of simply living in one. The Federation says 'sure, go ahead, good for you'. But suddenly, when the Federation feels they have a better purpose for those planets, they suddenly say 'yeah, you know, we kinda need those worlds. And technically, they are still ours, so sorry'.
Can you blame the colonists for not trusting the Federation, for fighting for what they build?

 

[Nightdiamond]

You have to wonder if some of those colonists put themselves in that situation in the first place.

Establishing colonies right on the border of Cardassian space- where territory is hotly disputed.

It wasn't just the colony in Journey's End, but obviously other colonies as well. They must have been warned too.

If they were made aware of the situation and went ahead anyway, then I don't know.

They had the right to defend themselves, but I'm a big believer in looking before you leap.

The Federation is said to have plenty of planets for inhabiting and as stated before, all needs and wants have been easily taken care of already.

What's with the need for extreme risk taking like this?

 

[R. Star]

You have to wonder if some of those colonists put themselves in that situation in the first place.

Establishing colonies right on the border of Cardassian space- where territory is hotly disputed.

It wasn't just the colony in Journey's End, but obviously other colonies as well. They must have been warned too.

If they were made aware of the situation and went ahead anyway, then I don't know.

They had the right to defend themselves, but I'm a big believer in looking before you leap.

The Federation is said to have plenty of planets for inhabiting and as stated before, all needs and wants have been easily taken care of already.

What's with the need for extreme risk taking like this?

Given some of the Maquis on Voyager cited being born on those colonies, it's perfectly reasonable to say they were settled before the first Cardassian/Federation war. They would have to be, being the Setlik III attack was the first aggressive act by the Cardassians.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I believe that if you want to come across as a government in which all parties are taken into consideration, you can't just give away territory for the greater good.

You not only can, you MUST. There must always be a balance between the greater good and the lesser. The needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few (or the one).

Given that there are vast amounts of territory still available in the Federation, and that relocating the colonists to such territory is easy, then I can totally see why the Federation might choose to sign a treaty like this. The choices are these:

1) Do nothing, which will ensure war with Cardassia, in which millions will be killed.
2) Relocate a few hundred colonists.

Now tell me, which is the better option of those two?

That way, you are in essence betraying the principales in which that government was based.

The Federation is indeed attempting to provide a better life to its citizens, core worlds and colonies alike. By signing the treaty, war is averted. I'd call that a better life.

The Federation believes that EVERYONE has a right to live a happy life. By forcing people to move out of their homes, you are not letting them live the life they want.

You can't always get what you want.

The colonists were given a choice, move or life under Cardassian rule. They were never asked if they were oke with the Federation giving their homes away.

Actually, the colonists themselves brought up the idea of living under Cardassian control.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Never mind that they were responding to Cardassian attacks, right Timo?

That's really mature... "He started it! I have the right! I have the right!"

With that logic you could say that the response to Pear Harbour or 9/11 was immature...parties in each instance were attacked and decided to respond.

Not to mention that the Caradaasian attackers were supported by their government which was against the treaty.

Also not to mention that the federation was ignorant of said treaty violation as well as the fact that both sides in the DMZ were shooting at each other.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Which brings to mind the question, were there innocent Cardassian colonists who were being harassed by armed humans?

Given Eddington's attitude, and assuming there were other Maquis like him, I find that rather likely.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

that relocating the colonists to such territory is easy, then I can totally see why the Federation might choose to sign a treaty like this.

Actually there was no mention of how easy or hard it would have been on screen.

In fact when the novels mentoned it the writers went with the belief that it was difficult as other worlds in the federation now had to deal with a large refugee influx.

The choices are these:

1) Do nothing, which will ensure war with Cardassia, in which millions will be killed.

2) Relocate a few hundred colonists.

So basically do what the Cardassians want or they kill you.

Well that's a very diplomatic race right there

The Federation is indeed attempting to provide a better life to its citizens, core worlds and colonies alike. By signing the treaty, war is averted. I'd call that a better life.

So that particular treaty which the Cardassians didn't even bother honoring was the only way to prevent war?

Actually, the colonists themselves brought up the idea of living under Cardassian control.

Which would mean that the Federation is sticking their nose in a Cardassian internal matter.

 

[-Brett-]

Forget the Maquis. What about that Dominion war? Millions dead because those entitled douchebags on Earth were too selfish to relocate. Shame on anyone who supports the Federation. Peace is worth more than some random property, after all.

 

[DonIago]

Oh please. One could just as easily say the DW never would have happened if the Maquis hadn't been entitled douchebags who pushed Cardassia into the alliance.