Yes they would. The Vulcans believe in logic, they are not moral paragons of human virtue.
How many people before it becomes wrong?, Star Trek Insurrection
- Thread starter marsh8472
- Start date
If you are a United States resident are you planning on giving your (stolen) land back to the indigenous people?
No, because that happened centuries before any of us were born, everyone involved is dead, and therefore we are not responsible for it.
War has never been about morality. The victors take the spoils. To me, that is nothing to apologize for. It says something about how far civilization has progressed that the outcome of war, imperialism and corporation can even be talked about under such a moral lens.
Except the federation did not know that until after Picards crew turn up. Prior to that, it's a blatant land grab.
The Baku apparently had a problem with the Sona staying on the planet, and had the means of driving them off. There's been suggestions of establishing health colonies elsewhere on the planet, what makes anyone think the Baku would agree to this?
Remember, no one wanted the Baku village, or even the planet itself.
If your house is in the path of a deliberately set back-burn intended to control a forest fire, yes the government can legally drag you out of your house.
The Baku were being move to prevent them from being harmed by the collection of the Particles.
In the meeting in the Enterprise conference room, there was dialog that the particles and the method of collecting them had been studied by the Federation/Starfleet's "best scientific minds."
There nothing to indicate this, the collection is to gather the particle for medical use.
I'm sure the Celts would love the English to leave.
The Federation Council knew, they're the ones who agreed to a partnership with the Sona and sent the Admiral in.
And there was no "land grab" involved, it was already a Federation planet in Federation space.
Otherwise why did the Sona form a partnership with the Federation?
I thought the harnassing of the particles from space was gonna f up the planet pretty bad some how?
The English? The Celts wanted the Romans to leave! The Celtic domain went from Ireland to the holy land! Before the Romans came in and ruined things, the Angles (they became the English) were a Celtic culture!
Norman's. Not English. The entire British Isles were invaded, certain 'Celtic' areas less so. The Celts were invaded by the Romans except in those lands, though some remained under Roman rule. History rather than politics. The modern Royal Family are German, and going back, Scotland was never conquered, Queen Elizabeth the First was from a Welsh/Norman background, and King James I (of England) was a Scots King invited to take the throne after her. The main 'conquests' happened hundreds of years before the stuff that gets remembered as a cause of trouble. England didn't even have an English speaking ruler for about three centuries (hence the meaning of the word marginalised) and the harrying of the north was pretty much ethnic cleansing. Your 'englishman' and your 'celt' are basically brothers at ground level, and it's the ruling groups for the last millennia or two who are the historical cause, especially when you throw doctrinal splits into the mix around Henry VIII (also Welsh, and ginger to boot.) Politics and the darker still side of human nature have muddied the waters since (not to mention Cromwell, or The Bruce stomping over Ireland and Wales on behalf of the Norman overlords before the family changed political views after his return to Scotland) British history is much more complex yet also simpler than the popular model used to influence people or make films with Mel Gibson in. Politics and History are things that are....fiddly. It's probably why most of the sort-of-tribal conflict in Britain is basically a class conflict rather than actually regional or national, with a few exceptions that have gone that way over time. Mind you....it's a bloody long time span, going from the Neolithic, up through the Celts, the Romans, Vikings..Saxons, Angles, Picts what have you. Look at Robin Hood for an amusing distillation.
It's a bad analogy for the treatment of Native Americans (who, it should be noted, were not stomped over by Elizabethan Empire building, and I believe groups in 'Virginia' were on quite friendly terms by the standards of the day...there's a big called Big Chief Elizabeth about it, though it's not really my area.) most of which comes later during the 'Nation Building' stage after the war of independence, and is of course wrapped up in religious zealotary and greed ultimately.
It's also a really bad analogy for insurrection, and the American model is slightly closer, though I personally wouldn't go as far as to use it as an analogy, except for the fact that the Baku situation is very similar to the Maquis situation, which Trek deliberately paralleled to Native Americans. Which is terribly clumsy in the film....the casting pales (hoho) into insignificance depending which point they are actually going for. In an odd way, the Son'Na are more like American colonists, as they are an expelled faction after a failed civil war (like Puritans).
It sounded like the collection process was going to heat up the surface (at least briefly) to the point it was uninhabitable and it would take "generations" for it to naturally recover, call it fifty plus years.
And since both tribes have intermarried since 1066, some of them would be glad to see the back of people like me and yet they love our German royal family....
Except they were manipulating Picard into protecting them, they knew damned well who the S'ona were and kept it to themselves.
That is awfully convenient way of washing one's hands of atrocities. Might be that kind of thinking as to why we have ourselves in the pickle we're in now with an idiot whose name rhymes with Drumpf.
Just because it's convenient doesn't make it any less true.
I mean, none of us have personally participated in any of the atrocities against Native Americans. So why should we be at fault for them? How can we possibly be responsible for crimes that happened centuries before we were born?
We are responsible for creating a better world so that it never happens again, of course. But we were not part of the original crimes and should not be made to answer for them.
Last edited:
Only the people that had tried to violently take control.
There's nothing to indicate they wouldn't and 600 people in a village claiming exclusivity for a planet is too absurd, at least or especially when there is no indication that they do.
True that was shady and at least a little dishonorable, it does make the situation more complex when the Sona'a do have at least claim to the planet (that claim and right doesn't invalidate the claim or rights of the Baku though).
The basic problem is that the collection method is not assured to work in figuring out how the particles even work. Only that it will destroy all life on the planet. If the particles don't work after that...than the whole process is for nothing and you have destroyed the only for sure means of making it work.
Regarding the Ba'ku allowing the Federation to set up "hospitals" elsewhere on the planet for people to recover in: I don't think they'd object to that, otherwise the Ba'ku would never have allowed the crew to stay on the planet in the first place (remember that the Enterprise crew were very well treated even after Data's attack).
If you don't trust that the collection will work, why would you trust that the collection would harm the planet?
If one is false, why not both?
Causing a reaction that will break down the elements involved is a known quantity. The science behind taking that reaction and making something else from it has only been tested in simulations.
Like If someone came up with a theoretical cure for cancer that could only be tested for real by nuking a town.
^Nuking a town filled with, shall we say, 600 people, or nuking a deserted town after evacuating those 600 people? Perhaps more accurately, irradiating the town such that those people will live but suffer reduced lifespans?
Do we know how much time passed between the Son'a leaving the planet and them reaching the state they're in by the time of INS?
Because if it's 25 years, then ouch. But if it's hundreds of years, then by the standards we see with other races, they're still well ahead of the curve.
I'm not saying that should be a factor, but...well, for me it would be.
Do we know how much time passed between the Son'a leaving the planet and them reaching the state they're in by the time of INS?
Because if it's 25 years, then ouch. But if it's hundreds of years, then by the standards we see with other races, they're still well ahead of the curve.
I'm not saying that should be a factor, but...well, for me it would be.
