Appreciating Ishara Yar

[BigJake]

That Turkana IV would have been a Federation settlement to begin with is far from said. All we know about is "communication" with the Federation until 15 ybp.

Whether the colony was based on some extremist philosophy, like so many Trek ones are, we can't really tell. It's pretty remarkable it featured this vast underground city even when surface dwelling was apparently perfectly possible, too - perhaps this was a mining community, sitting on untold riches, and those riches then ran out, leading to the dominoes falling?

Apparently, some of the novels explained Turkana IV as being a lost pre-Federation colony that was rediscovered by the Federation in the 24th century. I find that vast underground city rather fascinating, too: surely they can't have tunneled all that out while their society was collapsing, it had to have been an early feature. I guess its being an old, lost colony would potentially explain some of that. There have been hints in other episodes that such lost human colonies form a troubling gray area for the Prime Directive.

 

[BigJake]

Even if you didn't think you'd fit in with the federation there are places rougher than ufo but nicer than that colony

There are veterans who come to define their self-worth by conflict, and to whom a cushier life outside the conflict zone would seem more like a living death. To judge by how genuinely fearless Ishara was about putting herself in the line of fire--ironically, the quality that most instantly endeared her to a crew that didn't sense what its real source was--she was one of those. The kind of person who would have real trouble integrating into a more "peaceful" and less hellish setting.

Tasha was, of course, just as fearless. She just felt no loyalty to the people who made her early life a living Hell. Ishara, by contrast, was genuinely loyal to that place and those people and to seeing that conflict through, however awful they were. When she indicts Tasha as a coward for abandoning that world, she's probably being at her most genuine (and no doubt, there's an element of a personal sense of abandonment in there, too).

It's not hard to find parallel examples of people with that kind of mentality in our own history. Prising former child soldiers away from the ideology that formed them and gave them meaning is an especially tough task, though given more time, the Enterprise crew might've managed it.

 

[Timo]

Since the Prome Directive doesn't apply to a human world, couldn't the Federation just move in and declare peace? And given that they had years of violent chaos followed by years of rule by street thugs, couldn't the people who didn't like the cadre system request Federation assistance?

The place already seceded/severed contact once, back when the society was in a supposed upswing with a destructive war being turned into a game of laser tag. While the Cadre system may have its downsides, what would make the people think of the Federation as anything else but oppressors with a history of oppression? (Or, worse still, indifference, meaning Tasha had to go through what she had to go through?)

Even from the viewpoint of the UFP, it would be a bit like Mussolini's fascists trying to crush the Mob in Sicily. The locals might have had a dim view of the crime bosses, but dimmer still of Mussolini; the dictator's success didn't stick. Winning the hearts and minds of the locals might call for the UFP to sacrifice its principles, and they'd be as unwilling to do that that Mussolini was to drop his.

Not that the UFP would lack jurisdiction as such. Kirk was powerless to do anything about slavery on the UFP member world Ardana, lest the local government complain - but he was evicting human colonies left and right for fairly arbitrary reasons. Nobody credits Turkana IV with being or having been a UFP member world, and its status as a colony would suggest Starfleet has total powers over the locals, regardless of what they declare about independence or the like.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Unicron]

What i wonder about is, how could people raised with the ethics and sensibilities of the Federation sink so deep to cause all these kinds of atrocities?

Even if the conditions on the planet may have been bad for all kinds of possible reasons, i'd think most of them wouldn't be able to cause so much violence and suffering.

I've often wondered this myself, as I feel like there's a lot of background missing in the Yars' background that would be very interesting and also go against the grain of Gene's early TNG utopianism. I can't think of an easy reason why the Federation would have allowed things to get so bad, let alone be apparently forced away by a much smaller military force.

In "Legacy," Picard in his captain's log says that Turkana IV "severed relations with the Federation nearly fifteen years ago." It wasn't just communications; they cut off any diplomatic, political, economic, etc. ties they may have previously had with the Federation. So the Turkana IV colony considers itself to be an independent sovereign political entity; not a member of the Federation and not in the Federation's jurisdiction. And apparently the Federation has respected that. There were overtures to reestablish contact in the intervening years, such as by the USS Potemkin, but clearly no attempts to establish Federation control over the planet. The fact that this independent colony is inhabited by members of a species from a Federation planet doesn't automatically give the Federation authority there. When the Enterprise comes along to retrieve the stranded Federation crewmen but won't play by the Coalition's rules, the Coalition demands that Picard "make reparations for Federation intrusion into this colony."

Kor

As I recall, the FASA Trekverse seemed to assume there were a number of independent worlds that weren't directly controlled by any of the major powers, although some of them were strategically located. This was especially true in the Triangle, a region of space where the Federation, Romulan and Klingon borders brushed up against each other. One independent planet in the Triangle was mainly populated by humans who became stranded there during the Romulan War, and later became allies of the Federation but not direct members. Starfleet helped them with some resources like shipyards in return for support and intelligence against the Klingons.

There are also different levels of Federation membership and different political views on how Starfleet should operate in as an exploration and military force and how the Federation Council should shape its policies. Some worlds are happy to be merely "associate" members, where they lack some levels of rights and representation (as full members have) but receive Federation protection and support. In this context, the idea of Turkana being a colony that went disastrously wrong would seem more plausible.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I've often wondered this myself, as I feel like there's a lot of background missing in the Yars' background that would be very interesting and also go against the grain of Gene's early TNG utopianism. I can't think of an easy reason why the Federation would have allowed things to get so bad, let alone be apparently forced away by a much smaller military force.

I think that was the point, really, which was that it existed as a sign that the Federation COULD backslide and backslide completely. Utopianism was a fact but not a guarantee. Which is an interesting nuance. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea was simply because someone thought "Mad Max in Star Trek" was a cool idea.

 

[Unicron]

Makes sense to me.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think the idea that the Federation would also back away if a planet declared independence makes sense. It's just NOT AT ALL what they did with the Maquis. Perhaps because of this planet.

But yes, for my part, I fully accept the premise at face value: there was a breakdown of order on a Federation colony (of humans). The colony left the Federation. The Federation accepted this and left it alone. Everything went even worse.

 

[Orphalesion]

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea was simply because someone thought "Mad Max in Star Trek" was a cool idea.

I think it was just made up for Yar's backstory when she was still more like Vasquez from Aliens.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think it was just made up for Yar's backstory when she was still more like Vasquez from Aliens.

Eh, it's still her backstory and the most interesting part about her. The only problem being that you can't get into that kind of backstory on Network TV.

 

[Orphalesion]

Eh, it's still her backstory and the most interesting part about her. The only problem being that you can't get into that kind of backstory on Network TV.

Oh I agree, if they had exploited that backstory more, Yar could have been a very interesting character.

And eh, I reckon they still could have delved into her life on Turkana IV and how it affected her, even on network TV in the 80s. All they would have had to gloss over a bit would have been anything relating to the rape gangs (and honestly I prefer to think that Tasha herself never was victimized by them in any case) and maybe tone down the on-screen violence. But Ro's episodes in later TNG and the episodes dealing with the Cardassian occupation on DS9 show that they were able to delve into some pretty grim territory.

 

[Qonundrum]

No, this is not a thread about how hot Beth Toussaint was (and/or is) or her resemblance to Sarah Connor. It's simply about Ishara Yar turning out to be unexpectedly interesting as a character who had her own particular sense of integrity.

The episode was a mixed bag - some glaring and plot holes so large that a fleet of Borg cubes could pass through with ease... but her backstory and the colony was a plus.

I recently rewatched "Legacy." And I realize afresh how much I like the direction it took with Tasha's sister.

Ditto, though I preferred it when she had clothes on and not outfits that came from Perpugilliam Brown's wardrobe! Maybe there's a crossover episode with the Doctor, she snuck aboard the TARDIS and stole them?

In most episodes of TNG, the superiority of Federation culture in a situation like the one Turkana IV finds itself in would be unquestioned. Who wouldn't want to escape that place and lead a fully realized life in a free, "utopian" society?

It's amazing how many Bridge crew in TNG came from less-than-idyllic background, yet many were in Federation worlds!

But Ishara plays against type. She has been essentially raised in a militia in which she started out as the equivalent of a child soldier. The cadres of Turkana IV aren't quite the "rape gangs" of Tasha's recollections (perhaps just a snapshot in time), but neither are they pretty.

A snapshot in time, if not worldbuilding. Turkana IV is more than groups of rape gangs - looks a lot more dire all around.

They're the ruthless products of a collapsed society and quite convincingly sold that way, and this is one of the TNG episodes that really sells the naivete of the Enterprise crew's assumptions of the universal appeal of their own lifestyle without necessarily undercutting that appeal. It just straight-ahead plays Ishara as someone whose loyalty to the Coalition runs deeper than they can grasp.

When a society collapses, how long does it take for new ones to form, and how? It's easier for sci-fi to vomit up the usual trope of "long gone society". Arguably lazy, and was even by the late-70s. At least by comparison, counting up and comparing the number of stories that involve post-destruction, current state, building up, and so on.

And yet Ishara isn't immune to that appeal. She doesn't have to plead with Data to leave at the climax of her own invasion plot. She doesn't have to reassure him -- a being who supposedly (wink-wink) has no feelings -- that her friendship with him wasn't entirely feigned.

Why? She's not a throwback to 1940s/50s sci-fi.

She wasn't entirely unmoved by her time on the Enterprise: she's just a person who had to weigh that against long loyalty to the organization that raised and protected her for her entire adult life.

The ambivalence was nice to see. It's not stick figures in a stolid script - the story has plot holes, but IMHO it's made up for by little nuances like that.

Of course she made the choice she made. Being tempted is never going to be the same thing as throwing over all the "ideals" (even corrupt ones) that gave your life meaning for fifteen years.

I loved the honesty of that choice. For my money, it made Ishara into one of the most interesting guest stars on an episode of TNG. And Toussaint did pretty solid work in selling her multifaceted and complicated nature.

100% agreed.

I do sometimes wish we had gotten to see more of her... although given her loyalty to what essentially is a gang war on an isolated planet, I don't suppose that was ever likely.

TNG still doing "society of the week". Is there enough to the whole of the situation to create a multi-episode arc?

 

[JesterFace]

The episode was a mixed bag - some glaring and plot holes so large that a fleet of Borg cubes could pass through with ease...

I like 'Legacy' so I'm afraid to ask, what are those plotholes....
As I write this message I'm not sure if I want to read an answer if this post gets one because I don't want to ruin the episode.