Or the "Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies" could be a statement of Mars' independence from Earth.
How many planets and races dose the federation has??
- Thread starter Xenoween
- Start date
But in itself, hardly sufficient cause to start building extensive speculative scenarios of Martian independence...
The first permanent colonies came before Earth became United. Odds are, Mars would have lost its independence, if any, in 2150, just like any other nation (while loudly complaining about the blatantly planetist name of the new union).
Timo Saloniemi
The first permanent colonies came before Earth became United. Odds are, Mars would have lost its independence, if any, in 2150, just like any other nation (while loudly complaining about the blatantly planetist name of the new union).
Timo Saloniemi
Sure it is and it has been.
It's even possible that, with only a few settlements, Mars had its act together before the United Earth even existed and just didn't want to join it.
For the record, the ENT novel The Romulan War: Beneath the Raptor's Wing established that the Confederated Martian Colonies declared and fought a brief conflict for independence in the early 2100s. The novel Articles of the Federation established that United Earth was created by treaty in 2130 (though there were some holdouts). So the implication does seem to be that the Confederated Martian Colonies was founded as a sovereign state before United Earth was. We have no indication as to whether the Confederated Martian Colonies included all Human settlements on Mars to start with, or if there were perhaps some Martian settlements that remained under the sovereignty of an Earth state or of United Earth for some period of time after the CMC was founded.
There's clearly not enough data to establish definitively that Mars became independent of Earth in the canon, but the evidence can reasonably be interpreted to imply such independence.
There's clearly not enough data to establish definitively that Mars became independent of Earth in the canon, but the evidence can reasonably be interpreted to imply such independence.
...If one desperately wants to. But no sort of obligation exists.
As for United Earth, it appears to have existed all the way back in the mid-21st century, or at least the United Earth Space Probe Agency does. Might be UESPA has nothing to do with UE apart from the grandiose choice of name, though. Many a "National" thing today has nothing to do with the government, after all.
The idea that UE was created piecemeal and only finalized in 2150 is also a bit controversial: the wording of TNG "Attached" would be compatible with an once-and-for-all founding in 2150, without any "holdouts".
Timo Saloniemi
As for United Earth, it appears to have existed all the way back in the mid-21st century, or at least the United Earth Space Probe Agency does. Might be UESPA has nothing to do with UE apart from the grandiose choice of name, though. Many a "National" thing today has nothing to do with the government, after all.
The idea that UE was created piecemeal and only finalized in 2150 is also a bit controversial: the wording of TNG "Attached" would be compatible with an once-and-for-all founding in 2150, without any "holdouts".
Timo Saloniemi
Conversely, if one desperately doesn't want to.
Except for those that see otherwise. Quite a bit of Trek falls under that "it could go either way" category.
Or perhaps the Martian colonies independence from each other.
Except the novels only "establish" events and facts within the novel-verse itself, and not (at all) in the canon of the show.
With every novel, the novel-verse separates itself more and more from the events of the show.
For the record, Mars was never established as independent, might it be? Sure. But it's exact status is undefined.
In such a case, we'd be looking at multiple sovereign nations on Mars.
Which means for the record, that Mars could be independent.Except the novels only "establish" events and facts within the novel-verse itself, and not (at all) in the canon of the show.
With every novel, the novel-verse separates itself more and more from the events of the show.
For the record, Mars was never established as independent, might it be? Sure. But it's exact status is undefined.
It's all about the validity of the idea like countless others that have been presented in Trek. One can go with the idea or not, but it's definitely plausible.
It's still the case of a random phrase being drafted to do battle for an out-of-the-left-field idea, comparable to arguing that Spock had several humans in his pedigree (his mom, and then "one of his ancestors" as originally stated). It would be more interesting if Martian independence could be used to "explain" some other odd tidbit about the Trek universe...
Never mind TOS failing to tell us much about 23rd century Earth, or TNG failing to give full specs on UFP politics or economy - we need more episodes and movies about Mars! What does Harry Kim mean when he says Mars was "colonized" by people from Earth in 2103? What exactly happened then, considering this wasn't the first base or settlement on the planet? Would the act of "colonizing" be related to the Declarations somehow, rather than to the actual physical settling of the planet? As in, "declared to be a colony of Earth"? Was the Moon ever "colonized" or merely inhabited with a lot of colonies?
Timo Saloniemi
No, not at all. It can easily be that way. Nothing random about it at all.
Yes, everyone understands the difference between the canon and the apocrypha, and that the apocrypha may be contradicted by future installments in the canon.
Meanwhile -- so what? It's still a valid interpretation of the canon and worthy of consideration.
It's no different from claiming that the existence of a "Mars defense perimeter" in TNG supports the idea of Martian independence. Sure, there might be a historical reason why Mars has a defense perimeter of its own, separate from Starfleet's defensive arrangements, but that's hardly inherent in the terminology, let alone the portrayal. The idea of Martian independence has to be invented wholly, well, independently, until such random tidbits can be used as "arguments" to support it.
It's just that somebody chose to build this story of Martian independence, and eventually this particular phrase became part of that story. Somebody else built a story out of two phrases from "Whom Gods Destroy", inventing the Four Years War, and now that's an entire universe unto itself, too - but again merely allowed for by the canon material, not really inherent in it or prompted by it.
Timo Saloniemi
Political units below the level of the sovereign state do not usually issue fundamental declarations about individual rights.
One may interpret the line about the Fundamental Declaration of the Martian Colonies one way or the other. But the interpretation that it is an indication of Martian independence is not nearly as random as you are implying.
Um, if that works for you, fine, but I think when the Federation came around, Mars became a Federation world too and the "Mars Defense Perimeter" was a defensive line that encapsulated all the inner planets in the Sol System, not just Mars.
But the idea of an initially independent Mars did come from a line from TOS. Now you may not agree with that idea or even like it, but there are people that do. Because of a lack of anything definitive, the history of Mars is a bit of minutia that can be argued over indefinitely.
I seem to recall that Mars was independant of Earth as a nation in the 22nd century, and then joined the United Federation of Planets in 2161. Either as a founding member, or as one of the first to join in after it became an official alliance/country.
This independance caused issues during the Romulan War I imagine depending on who allied Mars was to Earth, or how little to Romulans cared who was what in a single star system (Romulas and Remus.....Earth and Mars)
This independance caused issues during the Romulan War I imagine depending on who allied Mars was to Earth, or how little to Romulans cared who was what in a single star system (Romulas and Remus.....Earth and Mars)
From the episode.
Cogley: I'd be delighted to, sir, now that I've got something human to talk about. Rights, sir, human rights. The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies, the Statutes of Alpha Three. Gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, a right to which my client has been denied.
Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies ... these documents all speak of rights.
Cogley indicates that the Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies is a document that makes references to Human rights, there's no mention of independence (political or otherwise).
The Bible contains 613 commandments.
The Code of Hammurabi contains 282 laws.
The Code of Justinian is a collections of laws and legal interpretations.
The Constitution of the United States contains the Bill of Rights, with includes protections of individual liberty and civil rights.
The Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies (FDMC)and the Statutes of Alpha Three are (apparently) also documents that refer to rights.
Give the company the FDMC is being grouped with, where do you see the FDMC being a declaration of independence?
Nobody here has claimed that the Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies was a declaration of independence. What I and others have argued is that non-sovereign political entities do not generally issue declarations of rights, and that thus one can reasonably interpret the line as implying that Mars at some point became independent of Earth.
Nobody has claimed that this interpretation is definitive or that other interpretations are not equally valid. But there are indeed very few non-sovereign political entities that issue fundamental declarations of rights -- especially ones that are considered historically important.
So does the Declaration of Independence. Y'know, the stuff about "certain unalienable rights..."
Over a hundred similar declarations have been made throughout real-world history establishing the breakaway and formation of a new nation or state (from Albania, to the United States, to Vietnam).
So, it's not a remotely implausible, far-fetched, or invalid idea that the Martian Declarations was also such a document.
As I've said before, one can go with that idea or not, but the possibility can't be dismissed. That's what the issue is here. The original thing that started this discussion--which appears to have been forgotten--was about the possibility. The canon card doesn't apply here, because most discussions about Mars history in Trek is speculative anyway with the exception of the Ares IV expedition and the year Mars was colonized. So the idea of an independent Mars isn't one that's impossible. It works just as well as any other.
That's the point of fundamental disagreement here: the possibility can easily be dismissed. Nothing obligates us to pay any attention to it, any more than we are obligated to consider the possibility that Alaska is an independent kingdom (you know, Alaska gets mentioned separately and once confused with Canada, there's a Royal Navy, oh, the possibilities...).
It takes deliberation to see Martian independence in Trek, or the Kingdom of Alaska. But that's all it takes, which may confuse the issue somewhat.
Timo Saloniemi
But the FDMC wasn't grouped with the Declaration of Independence. None of the documents it was grouped with were independence documents.
And was there even a single example on the show of a former colony, not only a Human colony - any colony, becoming a independent Federation member separate from the species homeworld?
Similar threads
- Poll
