Really? You don't see a problem with relocating people (against their will) from their homes?
Honestly?
Does anyone think Picard made the wrong decision in Insurrection?
- Thread starter Sisko4Life
- Start date
Really? You don't see a problem with relocating people (against their will) from their homes?
Honestly?
The evidence would seem to suggest that the Ba'Ku did not come into Federation space though. At the time that they relocated to this planet, the Federation didn't even exist yet. According to Memory Alpha's dates in fact, they had lived on the planet for 95 years before the Federation officially formed. So the Federation decided to claim control over planets that had in effect already been claimed by another species. How is it morally right for an organization to 1) annex a planet that had been settled for at least 100 years already without getting the agreement of the government of that population and 2)then force them to relocate to another planet possibly 200 years later against their wishes. I would see your point more if the Federation had come first, then the Ba'Ku. But that wasn't the case. This was a classic case of survival of the fittest. The Ba'Ku came and claimed a territory that was completely unclaimed space and made it their home. The Federation decided that because they were bigger and more powerful that this claim did not matter, and that their people needed the resources. So they took the planet for themselves, called it their space, and attempted to harvest the resources using pretty much whatever means necessary. To sum it up, the Federation is not in the business of annexing star systems and doing to the inhabitants of the planets whatever they want in the name of the greater good of their organization. That's a very Cardassian thing to do.
You made some good points. I didn't realize Ba'ku did have the planet before the UFP was formed. Morally it was incorrect, but it is a classic case of "my intentions are good and my gun is bigger than yours," a common case of human history...
Star Trek's utopic ideals of the future has always suggested we've overcome that history and are better than all of that, which is what Picard's stance was.
This is a slight tangent, but whenever I see Insurrection, I'm always a little sickened by how selfish the Ba'ku are. They were a small group of people who were lucky enough to be able to opt out of the problems on their own homeworld, and then to stumble upon one of the most amazing natural resources in the galaxy.
They know they're sitting on a resource which, if it could be properly studied/recreated/harvested, would be of massive benefit to millions or billions of suffering people. (I mean, bottled immortality for everyone, probably a bad idea, but a phenomenon which rejuvinated one long enough to arrest the spread of a and give other cures and treatments time to be effectively administered? That's a doctors wet dream.) Instead the Ba'ku gave up the pursuit of knowledge entirely. Cause hey, what obligation do they have to help anyone else so long as they're happy?
They did nothing to study the science behind this amazing planet. They did nothing to alert anybody else who might do such research to the existence of the planet. They did nothing with their vastly extended life spans to help advance a single beneficial cause for anyone else in the universe.
So yeah, I pretty much find the Ba'ku a bunch of privileged, selfish, morally destitute layabouts.
That said, I agree in principle with Picard's refusal to stand by and let them be relocated by force against their will. Acting on Son'a misinformation and going off half-cocked was wrong on the part of the Federation, and Picard was just being a good White Hat in standing against that.
But if there had been negotiation, and the Ba'ku then refused to allow others access to the planet, I believe that it would be wrong of the Federation to just shrug and leave with their tails between their legs. In that case, the desires of the insufferable Ba'ku could not be allowed to take precedence over the potential benefit to be gleaned from further study of the planet.
I still wonder why the Son'a would even brought the Feds into this. You can't trust those UFP people, as the movie clearly demonstrates.
Rua'fo should of sneaked into the patch and relocated the Baku at gunpoint, letting them watch from orbit as the particles are sucked from their dying planet (with his evil triumphant laugh on all speakers).
Those ST villains are dumb and deserve what they get.
Rua'fo should of sneaked into the patch and relocated the Baku at gunpoint, letting them watch from orbit as the particles are sucked from their dying planet (with his evil triumphant laugh on all speakers).
Those ST villains are dumb and deserve what they get.
actually folks, i think you are missing the very big and obvious secondary point made about insurrection. one could say that since the sona and the baku are the same race then they both have equal claim to the planet. remember the sona were expelled from it.
so basically it was like the children moving their parents to a retirement home so they could take the house and do what they pleased with it. now thats very common nowadays because the parents are usually in their last stages of life. in the case in Insurrection, the baku were in no danger of dying while on the planet. only after they would be moved off would their lives be in danger. hell they might even all die if moved far enough away. geordi lost the use of his eyes after they left the briar patch as my basis for that theory.
so now you just arent moving 600 baku, you are killing them; killing them so that you can appease the ones that declared a civil war against the baku. try and morally argue that.
so basically it was like the children moving their parents to a retirement home so they could take the house and do what they pleased with it. now thats very common nowadays because the parents are usually in their last stages of life. in the case in Insurrection, the baku were in no danger of dying while on the planet. only after they would be moved off would their lives be in danger. hell they might even all die if moved far enough away. geordi lost the use of his eyes after they left the briar patch as my basis for that theory.
so now you just arent moving 600 baku, you are killing them; killing them so that you can appease the ones that declared a civil war against the baku. try and morally argue that.
IIRC the Son'a "exiled" themselves as they didn't want to remain on the planet/isolated and/or refused to accept the Ba'ku's desires for a simpler life.
The Ba'ku didn't actively exile them.
The Ba'ku didn't actively exile them.
I thought the Ba'ku kicked them out when they tried to take over the colony. In which case, the Son'a are the brattiest teenagers in the galaxy.
Assuming the Son'a are kicked-out relatives of but 600 people who were far-ranging colonists or exiles themselves, it would seem perfectly clear why the Son'a couldn't operate behind Federation backs on this. Odds are, their total military strength would consist of one additional ship besides the two seen, and their total population would be in the dozens (not counting the Ellora and Tarlac subjects). If the Feds as much as growled in their direction, they'd fold like a house of wet and torn cards.
Why the Federation chose to act on the Son'a offer for longevity is less clear. As far as we know, and as far as Dougherty presents the case, the only reason the Feds didn't go for the thousand-spa approach is because the Son'a demanded more rapid action as downpayment for cooperation. For one thing, the Son'a couldn't afford to wait, so they wanted to use the collector device. For another, they had the hidden agenda of wanting to hurt the Ba'ku.
But why would the Federation agree to this downpayment? If they flat out refused, then the Son'a would die, but the option of a thousand spas on the planet would still remain, as the only thing the Son'a had to offer was the collector, which the Federation didn't really need.
Basically, we're left to think that the Federation chose to deport the Ba'ku out of humanitarian reasons, then: this was the only course of action that would save Son'a lives!
Now, why the Federation, or the Son'a-Dougherty cabal, wantd to deport the Ba'ku in secret is another mystery. Surely everybody involved in the cabal, and no doubt everybody in the UFP Council informed about the project, must have understood that the 600 Ba'ku were advanced space travelers without Prime Directive protection against interstellar contact. So the Feds could have waltzed straight in, told the Ba'ku that they had to move, and then either overseen a peaceful move or then drawn their weapons and loaded up the 600 by force. There would seem to be absolutely no reason for the holo-surveillance.
That is, no reason other than a smokescreen against the general galactic population. Even though the UFP Council had agreed to the project, certain secrecy would still be prudent; the Klingons or the Romulans probably shouldn't be let in on this until they could be presented with a done deal. So the straightforward operation to oust the advanced Ba'ku and collect the waters of the youth fountain had to be camouflaged as a cultural survey of a primitive society.
Yet it would then have been phenomenally bad judgement to invite in Data, an uninformed outsider. Why did they do that? Why wasn't the entire Starfleet informed, so no branch of it would make these dangerous suggestions and demands nor send their representatives stumbling in? Probably informing all of Starfleet would have been too big a security risk, though.
That's what makes ST:INS so intriguing: it's lies within lies within lies, and the rebelling Picard is still responding on a set of lies even after uncovering another set. His decisions are ill-informed, although on a different level than the UFP Council decisions or the Dougherty decisions or even the Son'a decisions. Nobody acts on the actual facts of the matter, not until Crusher performs her bioscan of the Son'a casualty.
Given the set of lies offered to the Council or to Dougherty, I see no reason not to deport the 600 Ba'ku. Common good would definitely justify much harsher moves, too. In contrast, given the set of lies offered to Picard, I see only one reason to deport the Ba'ku: to spare Son'a lives. Would deporting 600 in order to save two dozen be an acceptable course of action? I vote "yea".
Given the actual facts, I don't see a reason to deport anybody. But I don't see any reason to allow the Ba'ku to keep the planet to themselves, either. It's just not reasonable to allow anybody to hog an entire planet, quite regardless of what sort of claims they make to it. To bring this down to Earth, you might have a valid reason to hold on to a house, but you should be laughed out of court if you claimed you should be able to act on your ancestral rights to an entire village. No matter what documents you produced, the changing times and ideals would have invalidated all of those.
Timo Saloniemi
Why the Federation chose to act on the Son'a offer for longevity is less clear. As far as we know, and as far as Dougherty presents the case, the only reason the Feds didn't go for the thousand-spa approach is because the Son'a demanded more rapid action as downpayment for cooperation. For one thing, the Son'a couldn't afford to wait, so they wanted to use the collector device. For another, they had the hidden agenda of wanting to hurt the Ba'ku.
But why would the Federation agree to this downpayment? If they flat out refused, then the Son'a would die, but the option of a thousand spas on the planet would still remain, as the only thing the Son'a had to offer was the collector, which the Federation didn't really need.
Basically, we're left to think that the Federation chose to deport the Ba'ku out of humanitarian reasons, then: this was the only course of action that would save Son'a lives!
Now, why the Federation, or the Son'a-Dougherty cabal, wantd to deport the Ba'ku in secret is another mystery. Surely everybody involved in the cabal, and no doubt everybody in the UFP Council informed about the project, must have understood that the 600 Ba'ku were advanced space travelers without Prime Directive protection against interstellar contact. So the Feds could have waltzed straight in, told the Ba'ku that they had to move, and then either overseen a peaceful move or then drawn their weapons and loaded up the 600 by force. There would seem to be absolutely no reason for the holo-surveillance.
That is, no reason other than a smokescreen against the general galactic population. Even though the UFP Council had agreed to the project, certain secrecy would still be prudent; the Klingons or the Romulans probably shouldn't be let in on this until they could be presented with a done deal. So the straightforward operation to oust the advanced Ba'ku and collect the waters of the youth fountain had to be camouflaged as a cultural survey of a primitive society.
Yet it would then have been phenomenally bad judgement to invite in Data, an uninformed outsider. Why did they do that? Why wasn't the entire Starfleet informed, so no branch of it would make these dangerous suggestions and demands nor send their representatives stumbling in? Probably informing all of Starfleet would have been too big a security risk, though.
That's what makes ST:INS so intriguing: it's lies within lies within lies, and the rebelling Picard is still responding on a set of lies even after uncovering another set. His decisions are ill-informed, although on a different level than the UFP Council decisions or the Dougherty decisions or even the Son'a decisions. Nobody acts on the actual facts of the matter, not until Crusher performs her bioscan of the Son'a casualty.
Given the set of lies offered to the Council or to Dougherty, I see no reason not to deport the 600 Ba'ku. Common good would definitely justify much harsher moves, too. In contrast, given the set of lies offered to Picard, I see only one reason to deport the Ba'ku: to spare Son'a lives. Would deporting 600 in order to save two dozen be an acceptable course of action? I vote "yea".
Given the actual facts, I don't see a reason to deport anybody. But I don't see any reason to allow the Ba'ku to keep the planet to themselves, either. It's just not reasonable to allow anybody to hog an entire planet, quite regardless of what sort of claims they make to it. To bring this down to Earth, you might have a valid reason to hold on to a house, but you should be laughed out of court if you claimed you should be able to act on your ancestral rights to an entire village. No matter what documents you produced, the changing times and ideals would have invalidated all of those.
Timo Saloniemi
A
Amaris
Guest
If the Ba'ku wouldn't leave, they could be relocated without any needed effort. A single starship could take them anywhere in the galaxy, including Klingon space if necessary.
J.
J.
^That's my biggest problem with the film as a whole--the story is trying to draw parallels to things like the Trail of Tears, but by writing a planetary population so small that Picard and the senior staff can single-handedly move and hide every single person living there, it creates a situation where become a crapload of other, better options than the ones chosen by both sides. As a result, the Ba'ku look stupid, selfish and lazy, the Federation and the Son'a look like douches, and Picard looks like a pretentous, arrogant know-it-all.
That appears to be the only way it could have been written, though. The Feds cannot be pure evil - they must be misguided instead. There can't be an easy solution at first, as tension is necessary - but the heroes must find a way to twist the circumstances so that an easy solution presents itself before the movie ends.
So, better keep the problem at "manageable size". Especially if the resources for the filming can't plausibly cover more than 600 idyllic back-to-soilers anyway (as portrayed by a representative 60 of them).
Timo Saloniemi
So, better keep the problem at "manageable size". Especially if the resources for the filming can't plausibly cover more than 600 idyllic back-to-soilers anyway (as portrayed by a representative 60 of them).
Timo Saloniemi
Was Picard ever reprimanded or punished for essentially defying the Federation Council (in a novel)?
I don't think so. They made a completely different excuse for putting Picard in temporary disfavor in the A Time to... series of novels, which I thought was rather silly.
Kirk in ST4 at least saved Earth, so the fact that he humiliated Starfleet could be let slide with just a demotion. Picard in ST:INS did no such thing to redeem himself: he defied Council orders, he fought his superiors, and he fought Federation allies. I just hope that Riker didn't make the issue too public when signaling the Council. If it was a private "I know what you did last summer" discussion, then perhaps Picard could remain a hero. If it was a more public broadcast of the "Everybody now knows what you did, so you better start backpedaling fast" sort, I could easily see Picard's career ruined.
Of course, by the time of ST:NEM, everything is fine as regards Picard's career. So the A Time to... line of novels feels a bit superfluous and "resettish".
Timo Saloniemi
Kirk in ST4 at least saved Earth, so the fact that he humiliated Starfleet could be let slide with just a demotion. Picard in ST:INS did no such thing to redeem himself: he defied Council orders, he fought his superiors, and he fought Federation allies. I just hope that Riker didn't make the issue too public when signaling the Council. If it was a private "I know what you did last summer" discussion, then perhaps Picard could remain a hero. If it was a more public broadcast of the "Everybody now knows what you did, so you better start backpedaling fast" sort, I could easily see Picard's career ruined.
Of course, by the time of ST:NEM, everything is fine as regards Picard's career. So the A Time to... line of novels feels a bit superfluous and "resettish".
Timo Saloniemi
No I don't think he made the wrong decision. I thought the idea of removing the B'aku from the planet by deception was very un-starfleet. I wasnt happy about this. The only other time I have thought something was un-starfleet was when Janeway decided to steal technology from the borg. I didnt know starfleet were in the business of theft. And then on top of that she had the nerve to lie to the captain of the Equinox and say she hadnt broken any of the prime directives- she broke it in the very firts episode.
I totally agree with Picard's decision.
I totally agree with Picard's decision.
We should remember that Picard's decision to stop the clandestine deportation of the Ba'ku is a separate issue from the wider one of whether the Ba'ku should be deported.
What was being done was part of an evil plot by the Son'a, and should by all rights be stopped until everybody was informed of the real state of affairs and everything could be reconsidered. And Picard had few choices there. Either he had to fight a delaying action on the surface while Riker told everybody, or then he could use the big guns of his ship to stop the Son'a there and then. And certainly the latter choice would have been too aggressive until the Son'a made a move, not to mention less likely to succeed when the Son'a outgunned our heroes two to one.
However, at the end of the day, the Council probably decided to deport the Ba'ku anyway, or at leat force them to cooperate at gunpoint. That would have been the right thing to do if the Ba'ku refused to allow the other trillion mortal humanoids to use the fountain of youth - and it does seem that they were at least originally inclined to do so.
However, I'm sure they would have listened to reason eventually. At gunpoint, perhaps, but still. They weren't evil people as such - just your basic elitist assholes.
Timo Saloniemi
What was being done was part of an evil plot by the Son'a, and should by all rights be stopped until everybody was informed of the real state of affairs and everything could be reconsidered. And Picard had few choices there. Either he had to fight a delaying action on the surface while Riker told everybody, or then he could use the big guns of his ship to stop the Son'a there and then. And certainly the latter choice would have been too aggressive until the Son'a made a move, not to mention less likely to succeed when the Son'a outgunned our heroes two to one.
However, at the end of the day, the Council probably decided to deport the Ba'ku anyway, or at leat force them to cooperate at gunpoint. That would have been the right thing to do if the Ba'ku refused to allow the other trillion mortal humanoids to use the fountain of youth - and it does seem that they were at least originally inclined to do so.
However, I'm sure they would have listened to reason eventually. At gunpoint, perhaps, but still. They weren't evil people as such - just your basic elitist assholes.
Timo Saloniemi
^Ambassador Vito Corleone was sent to make them an offer they couldn't refuse.
I've recently re-watched Insurrection and find it more watchable with age. What doesn't work: The humor What works: The cast/crew friendships The music The filmography (colors, Sierra Nevada, wow!) My problems with the movie (aside from the forced humor) was the story. I always felt that Data's role from the opening scene should have carried on through much of the movie. They should have followed the original script/treatment to have Picard hunting down Data, only to join him. But, it is what it is and any Star Trek is good Star Trek. 
By that logic, none of the land outside of Africa actually belongs to anyone. After all, it wasn't their land -- people just found it and settled there.
The Bak'u had been living there for centuries. It was theirs. It was their home. They had a political organization that claimed sovereignty over that planet. Meanwhile, the Federation comes in, declares ownership of the planet, and tries to force them out?
Uh-uh. Not gonna fly. No Federates were living there. Bak'u were.
Actually, you might recall that the Bak'u were living on that planet before the Federation even existed.
Seriously, think about this. What you're basically saying is that no one has the right to live anywhere other than the planet that their species evolved on, and that no state can lay claim to any planet other than its species evolved on. By that logic, human have no territorial rights to Luna, Mars, Alpha Centauri, Vega, or any of the other five thousand colonies we've seen them inhabit. Vulcans have no right to P'Jem. Etc.
That's a precedent that basically undermines the entire concept of interstellar civilization, restricting peoples' territorial rights to their homeworlds.
Actually, it would be more equivalent to discovering a Cardassian colony in an unoccupied star system that we only claim because we drew an arbitrary border around it even though it's nowhere near us.
