Opinions on Michael Eddington

A home is more than some structured building materials and families are more than blood relatives.

A lot of people's lives are intangibles or are connected to intangible things.

 

And sometimes you should get over it and move on.

 

That isn't possible for a lot of people.

 

It, however, was possible for everyone in the DMZ.

 

France helped a lot. And no good deed goes unpunished: in order to help the USA gain independence, France ran up so much debt that they couldn't pay their bonds within 10 years. So there was no money in the treasury to import food for the poor when their crops failed. You know what happened next.

Oh, and forced relocations did result. The loyalists in the USA were forced out. The UK paid for most of them to (gasp) relocate, mostly to New Brunswick but other parts of Canada as well. They and all their descendents forever get to be called United Empire Loyalists and stick UEL after their names.

People can be forcefully relocated on a smaller scale all the time. Your house is in the way of a freeway, railroad, reservoir, etc, you can be bought out by eminent domain. It's not popular and in democracies it's minimized, but often there's no other way.

The Maquis didn't get to stay in their homes anyway, even under Eddington they had to move around to various temporary locations in the badlands to avoid being caught.

 

I know Chakotay resigned his commission before joining the Maquis. Fairly sure Cal Hudson did as well. Can anyone confirm that last one?

Actually it would look pretty cool if they were fighting symmetrically. Would require a lot of pre planning though.

 

I thought "The Maquis" made it kind of clear that Hudson had at least been colluding with them prior to leaving Starfleet. He certainly wasn't blindsided when it turned out that the colonists he was working with were members.

 

Given Sisko was still trying to contact Hudson as the other ranking Starfleet officer in the area when the Maquis declare themselves he at least still thinks Hudson was in Starfleet. Also Sisko tries to give Hudson his uniform back, which suggests that Hudson could just resume his position in Starfleet. Hard to do if he had resigned. Makes me wonder if Sisko had told Starfleet about Hudson either. Of course maybe it was purely symbolic. Given what Hudson had already done to that point whether he had resigned or not wouldn't have mattered. He would have been going to gaol.

As for Ro she was pretending to be kicked out of Starfleet when she went undercover with the Maquis. When she does decide to genuinely side with the Maquis it is played as an on the spot decision. She had no time for the formalities of leaving Starfleet. It was, boom, betray Picard, bye Riker tell Picard sorry, but not sorry. Ro out!

 

I think phasering your uniform is a pretty unambiguous resignation.

 

No they weren't, they were fighting to remain in what was legally Cardassian territory, despite having been offered a perfectly reasonable alternative.

They had no right to be there.

Of course it was possible. It was easier in fact.

 

These people had a psychological and emotional investment in the homes and lives they built, it wasn't so easy as pack your things and wait for the next transport.

This has been a very productive thread by the way and the debates have been poignant and interesting.

 

It's intended by the writers they've each built a little castle with their blood and that it's a moral good they are defending it. That's the cue the writers are giving us. We're to take that they are being maltreated broadly like the French were maltreated by the Germans in WW2. The colonists aren't silly people making mayhem for the giggles here. And sure, it's not consistent with the overall universe of a non-scarcity society where you can relocate anywhere with ease and where people rather than property is the thing that matters.

But I think it's most useful just to plough past that inconsistency and understand that the Maquis are colonists whom have been genuinely brutalised and they do have a right of some sort to defend the homes that they've established.

 

And that's where my Suspension of Disblief breaks, because until the Dominion War kicked into full gear we have no reason to believe that the colonists couldn't relocate and build equal if not better lives anywhere else.

 

I guess you've never had a home or community you felt attached to?

 

I've never had access to transporters, replicators, or holodecks.

I've also never lived in a society where I didn't have to worry about money and could effectively live anywhere I wanted to.

Imposing current constraints on a society that we know doesn't have them is nonsensical.

 

What makes you think psychological investments are "restraints"?

 

I'm not sure why couldn't is so important and why wouldn't won't suffice. Certainly it's happened that groups have refused voluntarily to relocate or held onto memories of living somewhere that drove them to try to return.

 

Because the colonists, through their actions, were threatening to incite a war that would cost a minimum of thousands of lives, perhaps?

 

I didn't say restraints, I said constraints.

My point is people tend to be less invested in things when they're freely available. My desktop PC means a lot to me because replacing it would cost money and time I don't have to spend. If I lived in an age where I could recreate it simply by speaking into the air and having a new one materialize, it wouldn't mean as much to me.

I suspect I'd feel rather the same way about my apartment.

And I sure as hell wouldn't put staying in my home over thousands of lives that had no investment in it.