Did anyone really care about the Ba'ku?

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I didn't care for the Ba'ku or their plight simply because the script failed to make me, or the audience, care. The Ba'Ku were so generic and flat that they wouldn't be out of place in the most mediocre episode of TNG at worst. At best, they'd be some village from an episode of Stargate SG-1. Nothing particularly special was made about them or why Picard felt so connected to them.

The film used shortcuts to get us "involved" in the Ba'Ku; the cute kid and the love interest. But they failed to stand out as well. Anij came off as a Beverly Crusher wanna be. And the kid was more annoying than Wesley, season one.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What were your thoughts?

I suppose Starfleet had to come in and massacre all of Risa's three dozen inhabitants before converting the entire planet into the raunchiest vacation spot in the universe.

Seriously. Just build a freaking vacation resort on the OTHER side of the planet and call it a day. How hard is that? The Baku don't have the means or the desire to travel outside of their little podunk town in the middle of nowhere so why does anyone care about them at all? Did the Vogons join the Federation or what the hell?

Stupid movie.

 

[Timo]

Well, as said, the Ba'ku (or at least the sensible ones, like Anij) would probably have had nothing against that. Nor would the Federation. It was just the Son'a who wanted the Ba'ku gruesomely dead, plus an instant dose of youth for themselves, so they manipulated the facts until the Feds thought that

a) the Ba'ku wouldn't agree
b) the resorts wouldn't be econo-politically convenient for the Federation
c) the Son'a solution would be best for everybody concerned

even though the Son'a solution was in fact carefully engineered to be worst for everybody concerned, except of course the Son'a.

What the Feds believed when the Council made its decision seemed to be this: the Ba'ku are ignorant natives whose relocation would be a convenient way to satisfy everybody, including said ignorant natives. What I can't fathom is how the Feds could come to believe this. Surely it would be absurd to assume that a 600-people village with at least late iron age technology could exist in "native" form on that planet! It had to be the result of colonization, even if said colonization had happened so long ago that the locals were for practical purposes "natives" now. (But then again, perhaps this qualifies for PD protection. After all, Starfleet was quite willing to secretly help the non-native transplant victims of "Paradise Syndrome" in best PD tradition.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[RAMA]

It may get a bit confusing to decide who is "right" and who is "wrong" when all the players in the movie are just shadowboxing. None are fighting a real adversary - all are being misled into fighting an opponent that doesn't really exist. Which incidentally means that the Ba'ku have the best idea when they don't fight at all.

As for the issue of the first-to-come having "rights", it's only civilized that such "rights" be overruled whenever common good calls for it.

After all, rights exist as a concept only through the acknowledgement of the rights by the empowered party - in a democracy, this means the majority through the representative government. It's the empowered party that gets to decide which rights exist and which do not. And no sane democracy would decide that a few squatters shouting "Hell, no, we won't go!" would have the right to do so if it conflicted with common good.

But as said, such confrontations in the movie were all illusory. After all the layers of lies were removed, there was no conflict there.

Timo Saloniemi

You people are all really scary. Former imperialist countries have regretted and apologized for years about their actions. Your attitudes are EXACTLY the same as those that wiped out much of the Aztec population. You haven't advanced at ALL! So much for enlightened 21st century inhabitants of Earth. "Yeah, 600 people really didn't have rights anyway until a real, legitimate governing body declared themselves the right to control the planet." Good grief, Gene Roddenberry would have been appalled at the UFP'S actions. Those issues were not really in question in my opinion, it was the fact that Piller picked such a small scale story to take to the big screen that was a problem.

Edit: It occurred to me that one of the most criticized TOS episodes: "The Apple" showed Kirk :restoring primitive natives to natural development. Who's to say they weren't naturally developing? The culture seemed to work for them. This was one of Kirk's greatest prime directive misfires. The UFP made this mistake a matter of policy and allowed themselves to be the victim of a personal grudge on a massive scale.

RAMA

 

[jgdst]

You people are all really scary. Former imperialist countries have regretted and apologized for years about their actions. Your attitudes are EXACTLY the same as those that wiped out much of the Aztec population. You haven't advanced at ALL! So much for enlightened 21st century inhabitants of Earth. "Yeah, 600 people really didn't have rights anyway until a real, legitimate governing body declared themselves the right to control the planet." Good grief, Gene Roddenberry would have been appalled at the UFP'S actions. Those issues were not really in question in my opinion, it was the fact that Piller picked such a small scale story to take to the big screen that was a problem.

RAMA

Ahh, but would Gene have not been a little satisfied that so much discussion managed to come out of what was, admittedly, a bit of a poorly thought out script?

It's a big screen morality play with no satisfactory answer either way when you dig below the surface. If that's what they were going for when they made Insurrection, then job well done. If not, then they seriously dropped the ball

I'm going to go back to my pre-season 6 Voyager self and live in the naive assumption that that's exactly what they were going for

 

[Trekker4747]

You people are all really scary.

Indeed. I read these posts and I'm just staring at my monitor like:

These people have all missed the point!

If the posting history in TNZ is any indication and seen through the eyes of Trek's ideals one would expect this to be a very left-leaning board and one that wouldn't accept or even entertain the notion of displacing "just 600 people" or claiming imminent domain over a body that exsisted before the body wanting to take it over.

JESUS TF CHRIST!

What is wrong with you people?!

The Baku founded the planet a century (or just as, my remebering of the timeline is fuzzy) before the Federation even exsisted or at the very least had even established "control" over the planet/had it in their borders.

The Baku did not seem opposed to the notion of others settling on the planet, the Sona just didn't want to do it because they a) didn't want to live there and b) the effects would take too long to take hold.

The Federation, in an affront to everything they're supposed to stand for wanted to force-relocate the Baku without their knowledge or concent to another planet (and as-if the Baku wouldn't notice right away if not from different topology, geography, the length of the day, the different seasonal/climatic effects, or that night from the stars in the sky) and take over demand of a planet they had no real right to.

The Federation has shown to go to great lengths to hold very idealistic values over individual rights and freedoms and independence so not only is the idea behind the story an affront to what's established about The Federation and the values humans are supposed to have in the 24c but it's just, plain, wrong.

How many people would it take before it was wrong as Picard quite correctly points out?

It was those people's home. THEIR planet. And the Federation didn't even so much as ASK them if they could have the planet for research? And what's more they wanted to reloacte these people (AGAINST THEIR WILL!!!) so they could artificially extend the lives of people?

Give me a fucking break.

Picard and crew stood up for the values the Federation is supposed to have and not only that the values we should ALL have as a people.

It's the kind of logic in this thread being tossed around that is the reason why we start wars over our "right" to natural resources. It isn't right here, today, on Earth; and it won't be right 300 years from now towards another planet.

It was the Baku's planet. It was THEIR home. It was THEIR metaphasic bullshit. If they wanted to keep it for themselves (and there's no indication they did) that's their right to do so. The Federation was in no correct position to declare themselves owner of that planet and its resources. It had NONE.

No.

NONE.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

What the Feds believed when the Council made its decision seemed to be this: the Ba'ku are ignorant natives whose relocation would be a convenient way to satisfy everybody, including said ignorant natives. What I can't fathom is how the Feds could come to believe this.

well, i assume part of the conclusion the Fed Council came to was that they'd be "restoring these people to their natural evolution," since this is how Dougherty tried to rationalize it to Picard. and if i remember correctly, Kirk and co. in TOS would rationalize their interfering actions as "restoring people to their natural evolution" every other week (and were regarded as heroes for it), so I can see the Fed Council's reasoning. the TOS crew constantly struggled with the moral implications of interfering or not, resulting in a positive or negative effect on the society.

Picard: "Who the hell are we to determine the next course of evolution for these people?!"
-- he would not have made as good of a TOS captain as kirk


but back to the point: the Ba'ku can try to hide all they want in the Briar Patch, but they must realize that they're a part of an intrastellar community, esp considering (a) they have warp technology (b) they're aware of other space-faring species and (c) they "control" a highly-sought resource. they have an obligation to be ready to represent their own interests since they can assume eventually their little oasis will fall under the territorial claims of some intrastellar governing body.

furthermore, these people are still the original colonizers. time obviously has no meaning to them. it would be different if their great-great-great-great grandparents had settled there, and they had long ties to the land and history and such.

 

[JoeZhang]

That film would have been funnier if at the end, we saw a Romulean warbird declock, kill the Ba'Ku and claim the planet.

Natives? what natives?

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

It's the kind of logic in this thread being tossed around that is the reason why we start wars over our "right" to natural resources. It isn't right here, today, on Earth; and it won't be right 300 years from now towards another planet.

It was the Baku's planet. It was THEIR home. It was THEIR metaphasic bullshit. If they wanted to keep it for themselves (and there's no indication they did) that's their right to do so. The Federation was in no correct position to declare themselves owner of that planet and its resources. It had NONE.

No.

NONE.

so, let's change the scenario a little bit.

a terrible disease is ravaging the world. the only known cure is in some rare trees grown in a forest on a South Pacific island. The natives of this island have literally built their homes in the trees, and they're refusing to come down so that the trees can be used to produce the cure. is the entire world supposed to suffer until the healthy natives come around (maybe never) to allowing the trees to be used? is this not enough justification to forcibly remove the natives for the greater good of the world?

key words in the anology:
terrible disease = age, sickness, birth defects, etc.
world = UFP
rare trees = metaphasic radiation
forest = Briar Patch or metaphasic rings
South Pacific island = Ba'ku planet
natives = Ba'ku

personally, i can't imagine the billions of diseased people around the world accepting "sorry, we live here" as an acceptable answer


here's another anology. You and I are at a restaurant eating. You suddenly become poisoned and are literally 2 minutes away from death. I just happen to have the antidote (i had it before you discovered you needed it), but I don't really feel like giving it to you (my reasons aren't important. what's important is that i had it first and it's mine to do with as i please). would you not try to forcibly take it from me? or would you just accept your fate, satisfied with your decision to not take what is not 'rightfully' yours?

 

[Trekker4747]

I'm not sure your example works. There's ZERO indication in the movie that the Baku were unwilling to share the planet's resources, infact there's every indication they weren't even asked.

Your analogy also has in it that it's a terrible disease that's going to kill of the population. Something completely different than wanting to extend lives unnaturally.


And since in your analogy we're talking about a terrible disease that'll kill off the entire population we're also talking about a very, very dire situation where it's litteraly life or death. It wouldn't be pretty but, yeah, the people would have to probably be force-relocated for the greater good.

In Insurrection there's not some massive galactic-wide disease that'll kill everyone off. They wanted to use the radiation to expand lifespans (in a time when lifespans are already past the century mark).

It's more like your tree-dwelling tribesmen are in posession of fauna that posess properties that could extend peoples lives and maybe cure some diseases but isn't otherwise direly needed. Because without people will still have normal lifespans and will die of disease we'll just have to fight and figure out the "hard way." But a government decides they want to do it the easy way but not deal with the people of this island/nation so they just gas them all, relocate them while they're all asleep without their knowledge, and then we do what we damn-well please with the isalnd. Oh, and we do it along with another group who has a blood-grudge against the islanders.

As I said, we're not even told if the Baku are opposed to willingly give up the planet for the "greater good" they're not even given a say in the matter.

The Baku planet radiation wasn't a cure for some galactic-wide disease or anything like that. It as just a way to un-naturally extend lifespans/reverse aging and to bypass good, real, medical science with a magical cure-all that may not even take. (As indicated from Geordi.)

No. The Federation was way in the wrong here.

 

[RAMA]

I'm not sure your example works. There's ZERO indication in the movie that the Baku were unwilling to share the planet's resources, infact there's every indication they weren't even asked.

I was going to point this out but you got to it before me. Add to this the UFP policy allowed undesirables to secretly slip in their own personal agenda while an admiral looked the other way, and the scenerio becomes very ugly.

RAMA

 

[Timo]

But it seemed that the whole situation only came to be because the Son'a introduced it to the Federation. The Feds probably didn't even know that the Ba'ku planet existed until the Son'a told them, asking for permission to slip into UFP territory, into a UFP nebula, with major weaponlike hardware. And from that point on, the Feds were being misled by the Son'a.

Somehow, the Son'a then convinced the Feds that the Ba'ku were primitives who should not be directly contacted. How this happened is the big mystery here; after we get this out of the way, the events flow rather naturally. If the Ba'ku really were primitives, it would be for their own good that they didn't need to witness their planet being taken over by space aliens - rather, a "Homeward" style maneuver could be performed to keep the Ba'ku happy and to allow them to retain their cultural identity until such time as they really had to face the interstellar community. In the aftermath of "Homeward", the UFP government would probably find that the morally most supportable alternative.

The Feds would then do their usual hidden observation thing, and would find things in accordance with the idea of "pre-starflight primitives" or at least the "colonization survivors separated from the truth of their past by generations of forgetting" claim, thus guaranteeing PD protection for the Ba'ku. Nothing morally dubious about that.

As for the aspect of keeping all this secret from the galactic public, it makes strategic sense and doesn't exactly hurt any of the good guys. It would be Adm. Dougherty's sworn duty to see that it doesn't hurt the white hats, AND that it doesn't unduly benefit the black hats like Romulans or Dominion. It would not be anybody's duty to leak strategic secrets to the world.

The "morally dubious" part only comes to play when Picard starts to unravel the layers of lies covering the operation. That he goes into moral conniptions when finding the holoship is inexcusable: it's not his position to oppose his government, nor to elevate 600 non-elected people into a decisive position. That he starts the insurrection there and then is high treason, and should get him shot (or given six months of therapy, as is the 24th century way).

It's only when Picard uncovers the fact that the Son'a and the Ba'ku are related that Picard's actions start to gain justification. On another front, Dougherty's acts start to lose justification only at the point where he agrees to the use of force in stopping Riker - but he recovers from that quickly, only to be immediately killed by Rua'fo, as could be expected.

So IMHO, the scenario is only ugly in the sense that the Son'a engineered it that way. From the part of the UFP players, Picard goes ugly when starting his evil insurrection, while Dougherty goes ugly when effectively agreeing to have the E-E destroyed. But that matters rather little in face of the fact that the Son'a were ugly the whole time.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekker4747]

You're still missing the entire point.

The Federation didn't have more rights to the planet simply because it was within their borders.

Plain and simple.

Period.

And even IF they relocated them, the Baku would know right away! Even if we accept they terraformed a planet to have *exactly* the same topography and climate as the original one as soon as night fell the Baku would know something was up!

The Federation was 100% in the wrong here and like all GOOD CITIZENS should do when their government is doing something wrong Picard stood up to them and said. "NO!" And said, quite correctly, the Federation was corrupting and violating their own principles and standards.

And I find it completely unbelievable the Federation would just "go along with" the Sona and not find out every possible piece of informnation they could and wouldn't have discovered on their own that the Baku were warp-capable or had that knowledge. I highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt that they would've just said, "Oh? Planet that can rejuvenate? Cool! You have the technology to harness it? We need to evict these people? Sounds good, see you at 10!"

No, sorry. The Federation was very, very, VERY much in the wrong here and Picard and co. were very, very, very much in the right.

 

[Timo]

The Federation didn't have more rights to the planet simply because it was within their borders.

Why the hell not?

It just won't do to give tyrannical powers to 600 individuals within a multi-trillion empire, unless those powers stem from the principles of representative democracy and thus aren't tyrannical after all. "This is my home" carries no weight whatsoever if the majority votes that it does not.

Representative democracy protects the rights of individuals by limiting the ability of the majority to vote on certain jointly agreed basic rights. Essentially, the voters limit themselves. But they can also remove those limitations when it is agreed (again by the voters) that this is for the common good. So the protection of "sanctity of home" can very well be lifted, and often is. It should certainly be lifted in a case where the Federation has every reason to believe that the people refusing to give up their homes are preventing the Federation from significantly improving the quality of life of their citizens.

Of course, as said, the Federation believed wrong: there would have been another way, and the benefits were probably imaginary anyway.

Picard himself said it best: "When does it become wrong?" The correct answer was: "After significantly more than 600 people are inconvenienced". And that is certainly how it should be even in the real world.

I get the point of the movie. But that point was simply wrong.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekker4747]

The Federation didn't have more rights to the planet simply because it was within their borders.

Why the hell not?

Other than the fact the Baku were there first before the Federation exsisted/covered the planet? Gee, I don't know.... Let me get back to you on that!

It just won't do to give tyrannical powers to 600 individuals within a multi-trillion empire, unless those powers stem from the principles of representative democracy and thus aren't tyrannical after all. "This is my home" carries no weight whatsoever if the majority votes that it does not.

A couple hundred years and some change a go so men wanted to impose changes on those under their rule. The changes would effect men who had no say in the matter. Those men ended up throwing tea into a harbor and paving a road to a brand new country.

"No taxation without representation."

In otherwords, they believed government didn't have the right to impose changes on its people without giving those people a say in the matter through a form of represenation. That's why today in America we elect represenatives and senators and the like.

The Baku, who had the planet first, were being told "We're taking this planet like it or not!" (well, they weren't being told that. But go with me.) And the Baku's protests didn't matter a wit and they weren't even given the dignity of an appeals process when they found out about it.

Representative democracy protects the rights of individuals by limiting the ability of the majority to vote on certain jointly agreed basic rights. Essentially, the voters limit themselves. But they can also remove those limitations when it is agreed (again by the voters) that this is for the common good. So the protection of "sanctity of home" can very well be lifted, and often is.

The Baku, the ones being directly effect by this, were given no say in the matter and weren't even being told what was happening. The plan was to remove them from their homes, without them knowing, and relocating them.

It should certainly be lifted in a case where the Federation has every reason to believe that the people refusing to give up their homes are preventing the Federation from significantly improving the quality of life of their citizens.

The people only refused to give up their homes because they weren't given a choice. They were put in a "fight or flight" corner and they chose to fight. We've no way of knowing what would've happened if they were just simply asked to move.

I say again that the Federation has no place to take control of a planet whose inhabitants were there first -before th Federation exsisted- and they were doing to improve people's "quality of life" as you put it. Not to cure a massive galactic plague or anything lof the sort. They were just doing it so the paupers of the galaxy could live longer life spans. This is no different than evicting people from their homes under imminent domain to build a health spa. (And, again, evicting and removing those people without giving them a say, an appeals process, or without their knowledge.)

Picard himself said it best: "When does it become wrong?" The correct answer was: "After significantly more than 600 people are inconvenienced". And that is certainly how it should be even in the real world.

You obivously missed the point of his speech then. At what magical number does it become wrong? A million? 10 Million? What number? Why is it majority rule in this case? Especailly when the majority is vastly more vested against the minority.

This is like Prop 8 vote in California. The vast majority of people are anti-gay marriage/civil union. So of course if you ask them to vote for or against such a thing people are going to vote it out. Boom, the minority is opressed by the majority. Which isn't right and isn't fair. The minority have no way of protecting their rights. The Baku can't protect themselves fom this happening becuase there are few dozen billion of them of to out-number the population of the Federation to say "You can't remove us!" ?!

That's fucked up.

That's narrow-minded, selfish thinking that is the reason why we have so many problems in this world. Too many people thinking for themselves and the greater good damn the cost it has on the minority.

A few hundred years ago so men came across a new continent and found dark-skinned people living there. These men felt they were superior to these hut-dwelling, backwards people speaking in odd tounge. These men felt it was their God given right to capture and enslave these people; simply because there were fewer of them and they weren't as advanced.

Centuries of slavery ensued and for the most part today we know how wrong those men were.

Time and time again Trek has shown us how good, great, and enlightened man can be (had become in Trek) and how much we can value individual rights and freedoms, non-interference of other cultures and most bizzarely that the needs of the few can outweigh the needs of the many.

It was the Baku's planet. They had lived there for centuries before the Federation had any claims to the planet it was THEIR HOME. The Federation had no moral right to enact imminent domain over the Baku simply because they had the misfortune of picking a planet that would decades later become "the Federation's"

And I say again, the Federation didn't even so much as ask them if they would give up the planet or share it's resources with a planet-side clinic. The Federation -in a rape of everything it stood fot- just decided to up these people and move them to another planet.

That is wrong.

I get the point of the movie. But that point was simply wrong.

Then this speaks a lot about you as a person.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

"...I've come to believe that there are times when one individual conciense can keep the world from falling apart."
--Arther Miller on Writing the Crucible
(Slightly paraphrased.)

Picard was that man in this story and I respect him alot for that. I actually thought his speech about how many people dying is acceptable and at what point the amount of people dying is not acceptable. If Picard wouldn't have stood up for this I think that would have been the moral collapse of the Federation. Instead of having a a group of intelligent and enlightened people you'd be snapped back to the days when Americans kicked the Indians out of land they wanted. (Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow, by the way!)

I do agree, however, that the writers went about setting up the story in an awful manner, the Ba'ku were boring at best, the villains are just general rogues and henchmen, and we even had an evil/misguided admiral thrown into the mix. It doesn't end up with much of an Insurrection, in the end -- more of a stand off.

I think that the movie would have worked better if they made the Federation more desperate -- even terrified. Make them so afraid of Dominion defeat that many see this as something that could change the tide of the war. The Councils all agree on it, the Federation president stamps approval on it. Then have Picard hear of it and decide to break off his mission to go off and stand up for the Ba'ku. Hopefully a less boring Bak'ku. You could just forget the Son'a -- have the villain be a panicked Starfleet. Instead of ending with a battle between Enterprise and Mr. Stretch you could have the Enterprise be facing a fleet of Federation Starships that decide the ENT-E and crew are expendable.

But that's my thoughts as an arm-chair movie plot writer.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

I get the point of the movie. But that point was simply wrong.

Then this speaks a lot about you as a person.

practical, wanting to help others, thinking of the greater good, making tough decisions, following orders, etc.

just sayin....

 

[Hartzilla2007]

You people are all really scary.

Indeed. I read these posts and I'm just staring at my monitor like:

These people have all missed the point!

If the posting history in TNZ is any indication and seen through the eyes of Trek's ideals one would expect this to be a very left-leaning board and one that wouldn't accept or even entertain the notion of displacing "just 600 people" or claiming imminent domain over a body that exsisted before the body wanting to take it over.

JESUS TF CHRIST!

What is wrong with you people?!

The Baku founded the planet a century (or just as, my remebering of the timeline is fuzzy) before the Federation even exsisted or at the very least had even established "control" over the planet/had it in their borders.

The Baku did not seem opposed to the notion of others settling on the planet, the Sona just didn't want to do it because they a) didn't want to live there and b) the effects would take too long to take hold.

The Federation, in an affront to everything they're supposed to stand for wanted to force-relocate the Baku without their knowledge or concent to another planet (and as-if the Baku wouldn't notice right away if not from different topology, geography, the length of the day, the different seasonal/climatic effects, or that night from the stars in the sky) and take over demand of a planet they had no real right to.

The Federation has shown to go to great lengths to hold very idealistic values over individual rights and freedoms and independence so not only is the idea behind the story an affront to what's established about The Federation and the values humans are supposed to have in the 24c but it's just, plain, wrong.

How many people would it take before it was wrong as Picard quite correctly points out?

It was those people's home. THEIR planet. And the Federation didn't even so much as ASK them if they could have the planet for research? And what's more they wanted to reloacte these people (AGAINST THEIR WILL!!!) so they could artificially extend the lives of people?

Give me a fucking break.

Picard and crew stood up for the values the Federation is supposed to have and not only that the values we should ALL have as a people.

It's the kind of logic in this thread being tossed around that is the reason why we start wars over our "right" to natural resources. It isn't right here, today, on Earth; and it won't be right 300 years from now towards another planet.

It was the Baku's planet. It was THEIR home. It was THEIR metaphasic bullshit. If they wanted to keep it for themselves (and there's no indication they did) that's their right to do so. The Federation was in no correct position to declare themselves owner of that planet and its resources. It had NONE.

No.

NONE.

I very much agree with this sentiment.

 

[cynical dreamer]

Take a look at how the American Indians were driven from their homes for "the greater good". The government of the U.S. is still apologizing to this day to first nations peoples. We seem to be able to justify anything using the greater good as a linchpin.

Taking what you want and then using the greater good argument to justify it is the argument of every tyrant and conquerer in history.

 

[Trekker4747]

I get the point of the movie. But that point was simply wrong.

Then this speaks a lot about you as a person.

practical, wanting to help others, thinking of the greater good, making tough decisions, following orders, etc.

just sayin....

Force relocate people against their will, declare ownership of a body because it's within your borders even though the settlers were there before your entity exsisted/had control over it, want to take over a body just to give people longer life-spans unnaturally.

Just sayin'.