How many people before it becomes wrong?, Star Trek Insurrection

What was that episode with the other pretty blonde people that tried to execute Wesley?
I liked the way the Baku woman calmly schooled Picard on what they knew....

That's true, especially the case with the Indians. They were specifically warned that the planets they wanted to settle on were in dispute with the Cardassians.

But I was thinking more along the lines of other episodes where the Fed would say 'we found it first so it's ours' in a dispute of a planet.

That only makes the Fed look worse if they can't explain how they claimed a planet the Baku settled on, before the Federation even existed as a nation. They knew the Baku immigrated there. They knew when they immigrated--before the Federation was even founded.

Otherwise, it looks like they deliberately claimed an inhabited planet they thought was populated with people who wouldn't know or care.

 

I believe the situation was that the planet was in Federation space, and under ordinary circumstances the Feds would have left the Baku alone, but under the circumstances as they existed at the time the Feds were willing to, for lack of better phrasing, exercise eminent domain and evict the squatters.

Kind of begs the question of what they intended to do with the Baku after they were safely ensconced on the holoship, though. Leave them there until they all eventually died?

 

I rather think it makes as much sense as a self-governing region located within the borders of a larger region. Which happens sometimes. (shrug)

 

Doesn't do much good for such a enclave to claim soveregnty, if the surrounding entity doesn't recognize it.

 

But the Ba'ku settled on the world before the UFP was even founded. So they weren't squatters had they arrived on it after the planet fell within Federation space you could try and use that argument the Federation was removing squatters. Simply put the planet had a resource the Federatoon wanted and they were going to kidnap the inhabitants of the planet, forcible relocate them and in essence steal the reource.

Now you can argue the Ba'ku whre selfish jerks for wanting to keep it themselves, but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I did say "for lack of better phrasing" understanding that the situation was more complicated. On the one hand, the planet isn't the Baku homeworld. On the other, it's essentially their "adopted" homeworld, and as noted they've lived there since before the Federation was founded.

Is the right to "own" a planet established simply by who finds it first? Is how long a preexisting colony has been there a factor?

As we've heard some mention of Interstellar Law in Trek, I imagine it might discuss such matters; sadly it's not brought up in the context of this film.

 

Or so the Baku claim.

The Sona appeared on the Federation's "radar" some fifty years before Insurrection, before that the Baku expelled them, before that the Baku arrived on the ring planet.

When the Baku actually arrived is unknown.

 

I'm thinking they have to first answer the question of claiming a planet the baku already settled on, before arguing if they are jerks or not for keeping the benefits to themselves.

The sources I see keep stating they settled that planet in the early 21st century around 2066 or something. The Federation wasn't even founded until 100 years later.


The Briar Patch doesn't seem to have a native planet claiming it either. It just seems to be a region.

If that checks out, then Fed legally--even by the Prime Directive's standards--has no right to claim their planet. They violated it, and did something illegal.

It could be described as classical colonialism in a sense.

 

^It might be classical colonialism, and it might even be unethical (more unethical than the Baku sitting on what they've found?), but that doesn't necessarily make it illegal.

 

But if the Federation claimed the region, would that claim be voided in the Federaion's eyes by the presence of colonists/refugees on one of the planets?

I keep coming back to the Federation doesn't want the planet itself, they wanted the rings. If the rings could be collected without hurting the people on the surface the Baku likely wouldn't have needed to be moved. The Federation wanted to move the Baku so they wouldn't be harmed.

But in the eyes of the Federation's governing body the move was legal, at least under their laws.

Once Picard was informed that the Baku weren't native, he didn't argue that the move was illegal. Only that he didn't feel it was right. His instructions to Riker was to put a face on the Baku, not to tell the Council that something illegal was occurring in the Brier Patch.

 

One thing I've liked about the post-Dominion War fiction is that in multiple cases it's been acknowledged that during the war things within the government were very much not business as usual.

 

That flesh stretching bit... I think I may have found what inspired it's use in Insurrection.

 

To be fair, and my history is shakey, but I believe the original English settlers made a pact with the local tribes that brought them under Elizabeth's rule...they became her people (Had a book from a charity shop, called 'Big Chief Elizabeth' about the early settlements of what became Virginia I think.) by agreement and treaty rather than the later military approaches. They even sent representatives back to London. All of that goes belly up after things like the English civil war and the loss of the initial colonies.
The Baku situation is more like the Roman Catholic empires, Spain in particular, declaring their ownership of Japan...and no one told the Japanese, so they were undersTandably surprised.

 

It's settled then, we need more carefully thought out scripts. No revenge stories.

 

Funny, but it's like putting the cart before the horse---I mean before they can even think about discussing how many does it take before it becomes wrong (great argument by Picard by the way) we have to get past this 'who was there' first issue.

I haven't seen one piece of evidence showing the Federation claimed the planet before the Baku settled there. And that's a major difference.

If they're saying the Baku settled this planet 300 years ago, when earth was barely out in space, and the Federation was founded almost 100 years later, the dates are not supporting their claim.

Just show us something, anything.

Otherwise, it would have to be called what it is; colonialism. If the Fed doesn't recognized that this is what it might be doing, that's even more dangerous. Historically, colonial powers never understood that what they were doing were wrong; it was just normal.

Bajor and Cardassia is another pretty good example.

 

I suspect the Federation government knew exactly what it was doing, but it was also being driven by the most devastating war in its history. As I've said, things here weren't business as usual.

 

It would still be colonisation...most of the early stages of Empire are driven by wars/threats by extant empires and a push for resources. It's possible this was a point Piller was making but got muddied.

 

I'm sorry, I haven't read this entire thread and if this has been covered, I apologize.

In a generic sense of the concept presented if we were talking about an indigenous peoples, you could take the Vulcan view of "The Good of the Many Outweighs the Good of the Few," or you could take the Genesis Project (and, by extension, I would assume the "normal" Federation perspective that if there's a single native microbe, you move on. I admit that Genesis was quite different than ordinary colonization, but the principle still basically applies.

I honestly don't know where I stand. I'm ashamed of what my ancestors and government have done to millions of people to allow me to live where I currently reside, but then again, I don't care to move to another land.