First Mutineer?

[NickandMorty]

Okay So I'm probably not nearly the first to point this out. But I'm sitting here watching Star Trek TOS. Episode 9 from season 3 to be exact. And I hear Spock say "there hasn't been any record of mutiny on a star ship". So am I meant to believe that 10 years after the events of Discovery everyone magically forgot about the fact that there was a mutiny that led to all out war with the klingons and to the death of 8000+ star fleet officers? Especially Spock should be aware of this because the first mutineer was his own sort off addopted sister...

This annoyed me.

 

[MacLeod]

The record was expunged at some point between DSC and TOS. So from a records point of view it never happened.

 

[NickandMorty]

The record was expunged at some point between DSC and TOS. So from a records point of view it never happened.

Wow. that actually made sense

 

[Nerys Myk]

Okay So I'm probably not nearly the first to point this out. But I'm sitting here watching Star Trek TOS. Episode 9 from season 3 to be exact. And I hear Spock say "there hasn't been any record of mutiny on a star ship". So am I meant to believe that 10 years after the events of Discovery everyone magically forgot about the fact that there was a mutiny that led to all out war with the klingons and to the death of 8000+ star fleet officers? Especially Spock should be aware of this because the first mutineer was his own sort off addopted sister...

This annoyed me.

Spock forgets that he himself took place in two mutinies in TOS season 1 episode 16 and in TOS Season 1 episode 25 So am I meant to believe that 2 years after the events of TOS Season 1 everyone. including the mutineer himself, magically forgot about the fact there were two mutinies? Especially Spock should be aware of this, because the first mutineer was himself...
Spock should also be aware of the mutiny aboard a ship commanded by Captain Garth as mention in TOS Season 3 Episode 14. Which presumably happened some months or years before.

This annoyed me.

 

[pst]

Okay So I'm probably not nearly the first to point this out. But I'm sitting here watching Star Trek TOS. Episode 9 from season 3 to be exact. And I hear Spock say "there hasn't been any record of mutiny on a star ship". So am I meant to believe that 10 years after the events of Discovery everyone magically forgot about the fact that there was a mutiny that led to all out war with the klingons and to the death of 8000+ star fleet officers? Especially Spock should be aware of this because the first mutineer was his own sort off addopted sister...

This annoyed me.

that is annoying, but is spock talking about an entire crew mutinying or just one individual? if he's referring to an entire crew, seems like we can give him a pass for being a very literal man.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

The record was expunged at some point between DSC and TOS. So from a records point of view it never happened.

That's exactly what I expect will happen, yes. And Spock would obviously still be aware of it, but deliberately exploiting the technicality to avoid the (irrelevant, in his assessment) personal disclosure, much as we saw him withhold the fact that Sarek and Amanda were his parents until they actually came aboard in "Journey To Babel" (TOS)! (I guess that's been redacted from his personnel records? Or neither Kirk nor McCoy have reviewed them? And it's not common knowledge, despite him being "almost a legend" among Vulcans per T'Pring in "Amok TIme"? It just goes to show how private a people they are, or at least Spock is. As McCoy puts it in the same episode, he's "as tight-lipped as an Aldebaran shellmouth!") Witness again how in STV he has apparently told Kirk that he "doesn't have a brother" despite having a half-brother whom he waits to reveal until the fellow has taken over the ship. Plus all those "a lie? no, an omission/exaggeration/error" exchanges in the movies, etc. It's exactly in line with what else we've seen of Spock's character.

Spock forgets that he himself took place in two mutinies in TOS season 1 episode 16 and in TOS Season 1 episode 25 So am I meant to believe that 2 years after the events of TOS Season 1 everyone. including the mutineer himself, magically forgot about the fact there were two mutinies? Especially Spock should be aware of this, because the first mutineer was himself...
Spock should also be aware of the mutiny aboard a ship commanded by Captain Garth as mention in TOS Season 3 Episode 14. Which presumably happened some months or years before.

This annoyed me.

I realize this is a parody of the OP, but I'll address it in earnest anyway. In "The Menagerie" the court-martial proceeding we see is revealed to be a farce, and Mendez merely and illusion, and at the conclusion it is stated that in light of the circumstances and Pike's "historic importance in space exploration," Starfleet has decided to make an exception to General Order 7 and to forgo any action or charges against Spock. So scratch that one. In "This Side Of Paradise" no one including Spock is in control of their actions; they are under the influence of the alien spores. So that wouldn't count. (Maybe the expunging of Burnham's record will be under a combination of both circumstances. She was clearly suffering from undiagnosed PTSD in "The Vulcan Hello" and she is now in the process of proving herself crucial to the war effort. We'll see.)

What the insane Fleet Captain Garth—excuse me, I mean LORD GARTH—refers to as his crew's "mutiny" was almost certainly nothing of the kind, but rather a quite lawful attempt to relieve him of command, after he demonstrated himself unfit for it when he went mad and tried to destroy Antos IV. Kirk outright states that the crew of the Enterprise would do the same if he tried to take her over. Pretty straightforward, that one.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I realize this is a parody of the OP, but I'll address it in earnest anyway. In "The Menagerie" the court-martial proceeding we see is revealed to be a farce, and Mendez merely and illusion, and at the conclusion it is stated that in light of the circumstances and Pike's "historic importance in space exploration," Starfleet has decided to make an exception to General Order 7 and to forgo any action or charges against Spock. So scratch that one. In "This Side Of Paradise" no one including Spock (and Kirk) is in control of their actions; they are under the influence of the alien spores. So that wouldn't count. (Maybe the expunging of Burnham's record will be under a combination of both circumstances. She was clearly suffering from undiagnosed PTSD in "The Vulcan Hello" and she is now in the process of proving herself crucial to the war effort. We'll see.)

What the insane Fleet Captain Garth—excuse me, I mean LORD GARTH—refers to as his crew's "mutiny" was almost certainly nothing of the kind, but rather a quite lawful attempt to relieve him of command, after he demonstrated himself unfit for it when he went mad and tried to destroy Antos IV. Kirk outright states that the crew of the Enterprise would do the same if he tried to take her over. Pretty straightforward, that one.

I imagine Spock having a Sheldon-like melt down when having to say something that contradicts what he actually knows. Sure no charges were filed, but Spock knows what he did.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I imagine Spock having a Sheldon-like melt down when having to say something that contradicts what he actually knows. Sure no charges were filed, but Spock knows what he did.

And yet I'm sure we've seen him do so without any such issues. But there is no such contradiction in "The Tholian Web" despite his deft dodge:

CHEKOV: Has there ever been a mutiny on a starship before?
SPOCK: Absolutely no record of such an occurrence, Ensign.

Spock deflects from the actual question Chekov asks, and pointedly doesn't say there has never been a mutiny on a starship before. Only that there is currently no record of one.

We may readliy presume that Kirk withdrew and struck from his log the accusation of mutiny against his crew in "This Side Of Paradise" once the incident was resolved and their lack of responsibility established. But captains can accuse away, anyway. As far as Spock's statement goes, there can even be records of other people besides Burnham being brought up on charges of mutiny, but acquitted, thus establishing as the official record that no mutiny in fact took place in those cases. Only a court-martial could make the ultimate determination as to whether an act is or isn't mutinous in context, right?

 

[XCV330]

Spock's just looking after big sis. He's a good brother to her.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And yet I'm sure we've seen him do so without any such issues. But there is no such contradiction in "The Tholian Web" despite his deft dodge:

CHEKOV: Has there ever been a mutiny on a starship before?
SPOCK: Absolutely no record of such an occurrence, Ensign.

Spock deflects from the actual question Chekov asks, and pointedly doesn't say there has never been a mutiny on a starship before. Only that there is currently no record of one. (We may readily presume that Kirk withdrew and struck from his log the accusation of mutiny against his crew in "This Side Of Paradise" once the incident was resolved and their lack of responsibility established.)

Captains can accuse away, anyway. As far as Spock's statement goes, there can even be records of other people besides Burnham being brought up on charges of mutiny, but acquitted, thus establishing as the official record that no mutiny in fact took place in those cases. Only a court-martial could make the ultimate determination as to whether an act is or isn't mutinous, right?

Just a joke.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Just a joke.

I figured as much. Just found that I had a bit more to say on the subject than I did in my first post.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

The record was expunged at some point between DSC and TOS. So from a records point of view it never happened.

Was the memory about his adopted sister’s mutiny expunged from Spock’s brain as well? Probably. Along with her entire existence.

Or he’s simply lying. Vulcans are notorious for lying.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Was the memory about his adopted sister’s mutiny expunged from Spock’s brain as well? Probably. Along with her entire existence.

Or he’s simply lying. Vulcans are notorious for lying.

Spock totally is. He's so good at it that he can even convince a Klingon mind-sifter. Every single time he talks about Vulcans being "incapable of lying"...he is lying.

But you don't have to take my word for it. I could be lying, after all. Just watch the shows and movies, and see for yourself!

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Spock totally is. He's so good at it that he can even convince a Klingon mind-sifter. Every single time he talks about Vulcans being "incapable of lying"...he is lying.

But you don't have to take my word for it. I could be lying, after all. Just watch the shows and movies, and see for yourself!

I wasn’t lying either about Vulcans either. I was merely exaggerating.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I wasn’t lying either about Vulcans either. I was merely exaggerating.

Very well. For twenty-four hours, we'll agree this conversation did not take place...

 

[shreefe]

I don't understand why Burnham is called 'Starfleet's First Mutineer'. She is the -only- mutineer. Are they automatically assuming there will be a second mutineer? I guess if she isn't treated harshly, there might be someone in the future who will think 'well Burnham did it and her career survived, maybe I can too'. Anyways, until a second mutiny occurs, she should be known as 'Starfleet's Only Mutineer'.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's okay, they tweeted that it's prime universe so if you see any massive and obvious contradictions you're wrong.

Or something.

 

[The Wormhole]

I don't understand why Burnham is called 'Starfleet's First Mutineer'. She is the -only- mutineer. Are they automatically assuming there will be a second mutineer? I guess if she isn't treated harshly, there might be someone in the future who will think 'well Burnham did it and her career survived, maybe I can too'. Anyways, until a second mutiny occurs, she should be known as 'Starfleet's Only Mutineer'.

Maybe there have been other mutinies in the six months between the Binary Stars and Michael's arrival on Discovery? In that case, she is the first mutineer.

 

[Tuskin38]

It's okay, they tweeted that it's prime universe so if you see any massive and obvious contradictions you're wrong.

Or something.

They also said it will be explained.

 

[zar]

So am I meant to believe that 10 years after the events of Discovery everyone magically forgot about the fact that there was a mutiny that led to all out war with the klingons

I don't think you're meant to believe everyone forgot, but it at least is not public record and is less known. And yes, 10 years can make a big difference. Especially if you're an 11 year old kid in Russia during the war (Chekov was 22 in TOS S2).

I don't understand why Burnham is called 'Starfleet's First Mutineer'. She is the -only- mutineer. Are they automatically assuming there will be a second mutineer? I guess if she isn't treated harshly, there might be someone in the future who will think 'well Burnham did it and her career survived, maybe I can too'. Anyways, until a second mutiny occurs, she should be known as 'Starfleet's Only Mutineer'.

From a review of a biography of John Tyler:

At numerous points in the book Crapol berates Tyler for his occasionally poor decisions, his pathological inability to recognize the horror of slavery, and for being the first and only “traitor president” of the United States (by supporting the South’s secession from the Union).

"First" doesn't necessarily mean there have been or are expected to be more, it can be describing something that there has been many of but never before in a certain context (e.g. US presidency, or Starfleet). I should also point out that despite the civil war being common knowledge, the seemingly significant fact of a traitor president is a piece of trivia (literally) that many people wouldn't know. See also, Chekov. (On the other hand I'm sure there are many people who would say there have been more than one traitor president, but let's not go there.)

Burnham has been called both the "first" and "only" Starfleet mutineer. "First mutineer" by Landry. Then Admiral Kat, episode 5: "This organization's only convicted mutineer is viewed by many as the cause of our conflict..." Other than that, it's usually just "the mutineer".