I don't "get" the Maquis at all. Please explain them for me.
- Thread starter Cepstrum
- Start date
We have no information on the average size of Federation colonies in the DMZ. In real life, however, colonies typically involve quite a few cities and vast numbers of people. Multiply the size of one colony by the dozens of colonies that may be located upon a single planet, and then multiply that by the dozens of Federation worlds that would have been affected, and we're probably talking about hundreds of millions of people.
Actually, there's no evidence that the Federation demanded that the Cardassians make territorial concessions comparable to those made by the Federation. That's why I call it appeasement.
Having your right to self-determination violated is not a mere "inconvenience." It's a fundamental betrayal of your rights by your own government.
And that's fair enough -- if the Federation had to pick between getting itself prepared for war or showing its hand too soon and losing the coming war with the Dominion, I don't really blame the Federation for not helping the Maquis against the Dominion. But I do blame the Federation for not acting to protect its colonists against the Cardassian attacks that prompted the colonists to form the Maquis.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
READ my posts, Anwar:
"In 'blaze of glory' the fededration had a much better position vis a vis the dominion than it had in 'call to arms':
The dominion brought THOUSANDS of ships, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of jem'hadar through the wormhole in the intervening time;
It reconstructerd the collapsed cardassian economy, building a base from which to support the war effort;
It made non-agression treaties with many powers, including the romulans and the tholians.
And what did the federation gained in the meantime?
It made that better shield aagainst polaron weapons and it increaded ship building.
The dominion profited MUCH MORE than the federation of the time between 'blaze of glory' and 'call to arms'."
If the federatioin couldn't defeat the dominion by the time of'blaze of glory' they had no chance in hell of defeating the MUCH improved dominion by the time of 'call to arms'
And: "At the time of 'blaze of glory' federation shields were reasonably effective against dominion polaron weapons - see Defiant's behaviour in a number of prior episodes for proof."
Episodes: 'The die is cast', 'Starshp down', etc.
The reconstruction of Cardassia already happened before "Blaze of Glory", they already had their foothold. The additional ships in between? Good for the Dominion, but for the Feds the sticking point was getting their shields to work against Dominion weaponry. Hell, even with that they were still losing until the Romulans started helping.
As for the Defiant, I chalk that up to plot armor more than actual tech. It was always harder to damage the Defiant compared to other Fed ships (even the stronger ones), because the Defiant had important characters on it.
As for the Defiant, I chalk that up to plot armor more than actual tech. It was always harder to damage the Defiant compared to other Fed ships (even the stronger ones), because the Defiant had important characters on it.
How long do they need to live there, and how many people do there need to be, for trying to forcibly move a group of people to be wrong?
Doing that to one person is too many.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Call it as you want - it's canon. Defiant's shields provided adequate protection to polaron weapons.
And we haven't seen other federation ships dealing with dominion bugs between Odyssey and the start of the war. Except Garack/Worf's runabout in 'in purgatory's shadow' - its shields held pretty well, too.
In 'way of the warrior', Defiant's ablative armor was destroyed by 3-4 shots of a 30% power klingon disruptor.
In 'Starship down' or 'The die is cast', Defiant endured much more punishment much better.
Again - Defiant's shields were a reasonable protection against polaron weaponry.
As for the rest - agan, Anwar, if the federates could not defeat the 'blaze of glory' dominion, they most certainly would not defeat a dominion thousands of ships/etc. etc stronger by 'call to arms'.
They federates were losing at the beginning of the war? That's what happens if you wait, letting your enemy bring thousands of ships and with impunity build a huge army, instead of acting while your enemy is still unprepared for war.
`````Near as I can tell, the colonists in question sort of "self-selected" (from all of the Federation's ponderously vast populace) for backwards 'tudes. If 99.99% of Federationites were happily well-adjusted (with the modern, forward-looking mindsets you rightly reference) the thousandth of a percent left (out of a population of a hundred billion, at my best guess) could still be ten million aggressively-rural, gun-totin', self-isolated, resentful, hotheaded sore losers...but with access to 24th Century weaponry.
`````Sounds like a real problem to me.
`````Now, the idea of 1/1,000th of 1% of citizens falling through the cracks of what would have to be comprehensive cradle-to-grave psychevals, or of that many unsuccessful corrective treatments, points to a systemic failure in Federation education/directed-psychological-development, and probably law enforcement, too. But maybe prevalent societal attitudes were that if certain folks (in relatively small numbers) refused to conform, but clumped instead into colonies, perhaps everyone would be better off leaving them alone and hoping for the best in those colonies' future generations, a sort of self-imposed mass Coventry (a la Robert A. Heinlein) with a built-in, if lengthy, time scale.
`````I hope that reading this helps you. Writing it helped me, by crystallizing thoughts that had been at the back of my mind for decades, unexamined and incomplete. :>)
`````Sounds like a real problem to me.
`````Now, the idea of 1/1,000th of 1% of citizens falling through the cracks of what would have to be comprehensive cradle-to-grave psychevals, or of that many unsuccessful corrective treatments, points to a systemic failure in Federation education/directed-psychological-development, and probably law enforcement, too. But maybe prevalent societal attitudes were that if certain folks (in relatively small numbers) refused to conform, but clumped instead into colonies, perhaps everyone would be better off leaving them alone and hoping for the best in those colonies' future generations, a sort of self-imposed mass Coventry (a la Robert A. Heinlein) with a built-in, if lengthy, time scale.
`````I hope that reading this helps you. Writing it helped me, by crystallizing thoughts that had been at the back of my mind for decades, unexamined and incomplete. :>)
Last edited:
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Crewman Wunline
This is NOT only about the colonists' behaviour (and I find you conclusions in this regard unfounded) but also about the federation's behaviour towards the colonists:
"The federation betrayed the colonists' fundamental right of property when it ceded their colonies/lands to the cardassians, in an attempt to appease the cardassians.
The federation further betrayed the colonists - still federation citizens - when it hunted them down like animals - killing them without trial, poisoning their colonies with biological weapons - with no repercursions for the perpetrators of these crimes (starfleet officers).
But the greatest betrayal the federation perpetrated against the colonists was when it didn't lift a finger to save them while they were massascred - ALL of them: WOMEN, CHILDREN, ELDERLY (non-combatants) - by the cardassians/dominion.
Apparently, the colonists are federation citizens only when it's convenient for the federation (being bound by federation treaties and the maquis branded as terrorists), NOT when the federation has obligations to fulfill toward the colonists - such as protecting them against genocide.
And why this second-class citizens treatment?
Because the colonists dared say no to big brother - from that moment on, the colonists were just expendable cannon fodder for the federation, without rights, only with obligations, to be disposed of at its convenience. "
This is NOT only about the colonists' behaviour (and I find you conclusions in this regard unfounded) but also about the federation's behaviour towards the colonists:
"The federation betrayed the colonists' fundamental right of property when it ceded their colonies/lands to the cardassians, in an attempt to appease the cardassians.
The federation further betrayed the colonists - still federation citizens - when it hunted them down like animals - killing them without trial, poisoning their colonies with biological weapons - with no repercursions for the perpetrators of these crimes (starfleet officers).
But the greatest betrayal the federation perpetrated against the colonists was when it didn't lift a finger to save them while they were massascred - ALL of them: WOMEN, CHILDREN, ELDERLY (non-combatants) - by the cardassians/dominion.
Apparently, the colonists are federation citizens only when it's convenient for the federation (being bound by federation treaties and the maquis branded as terrorists), NOT when the federation has obligations to fulfill toward the colonists - such as protecting them against genocide.
And why this second-class citizens treatment?
Because the colonists dared say no to big brother - from that moment on, the colonists were just expendable cannon fodder for the federation, without rights, only with obligations, to be disposed of at its convenience. "
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
DonIago
So, according to you, federation citizens have no right to property, to innocent until proven guilty and to fair trial, to self-determination, to life - you see, ALL of these rights of theirs were violated by the federaton (not "just" the right to property).
DonIago, the federation was depicted as a free society, not as a tyrannical, oppressive system - except for its behaviour towars the DMZ colonists, that is.
PS - My tone is justified considering the magnitude of the federation's betrayals - and your willingness to turn a blind eye to them.
So, according to you, federation citizens have no right to property, to innocent until proven guilty and to fair trial, to self-determination, to life - you see, ALL of these rights of theirs were violated by the federaton (not "just" the right to property).
DonIago, the federation was depicted as a free society, not as a tyrannical, oppressive system - except for its behaviour towars the DMZ colonists, that is.
PS - My tone is justified considering the magnitude of the federation's betrayals - and your willingness to turn a blind eye to them.
Yeah, right, an enlightened society based on the ideals of freedom and self-determination wouldn't have enumerated basic property rights. Riiiiiiight.
An enlightened society would recognize that preserving peace is not as important as preserving the rights of its citizenry.
And, no, you cannot have liberty without basic property rights, nor without basic rights of self-determination for communities. Nor can you have liberty if you sacrifice the rights of individuals and the rights of groups in the name of appeasing an enemy.
I always viewed the Maquis (and still do) as terrorists and criminals. Nothing more.
My reasons are simple: Dorvan V was proof that the Maquis *asked* to stay where they are. There's no proof that it was a special case - it was representative.
And in the end, it was the Maquis whose actions propelled the Cardassians into joining the Dominion in the first place. They *provoked* the Cardassians into doing so. The actions of the Maquis risked war - and that's exactly what they got.
The Federation had every right to sign a peace treaty with Cardassia, and in the course of all peace treaties, concessions must always be made. Why should the entire Federation be made to suffer just because a few colonists won't move?
You may ask, what if the government gave away my home (even without asking). Well, I'd have to say I'd be a bit upset about that, but if the alternative was World War III, then hell yeah, I'd move!
My reasons are simple: Dorvan V was proof that the Maquis *asked* to stay where they are. There's no proof that it was a special case - it was representative.
And in the end, it was the Maquis whose actions propelled the Cardassians into joining the Dominion in the first place. They *provoked* the Cardassians into doing so. The actions of the Maquis risked war - and that's exactly what they got.
The Federation had every right to sign a peace treaty with Cardassia, and in the course of all peace treaties, concessions must always be made. Why should the entire Federation be made to suffer just because a few colonists won't move?
You may ask, what if the government gave away my home (even without asking). Well, I'd have to say I'd be a bit upset about that, but if the alternative was World War III, then hell yeah, I'd move!
I definitely think that eminent domain constitutes a violation of citizens' rights -- especially when it's done so that the local government can hand that same land over to commercial developers for tax revenue.
And, yes, I think the U.S. engages in any number of rights abuses, including eminent domain, banning same-sex civil marriages, denying citizens of the District of Columbia equal representation in Congress, and denying adults the right to ingest whatever substances they wish. And all that is to say nothing of the acts of torture and imperialism the U.S. government has committed abroad.
Bullshit. The colonists asked to stay on their worlds when they were ceded to the Cardassian Union, but it was the Cardassians who started attacking them in spite of public promises not to. The Cardassians started the conflict.
From Memory Alpha's Maquis article:
The Cardassians started the fighting. The Maquis were fighting to defend themselves from Cardassian persecution. It was the Cardassians who then decided to join the Dominion in response to the Maquis' gradually winning in the DMZ and to the Klingon invasion.
You don't start a fight, get beaten, and then come back later to beat up the guy who beat you with your new friends, and then claim the other guy provoked you.
Oh bullocks. The Federation was at war with the Cardassian Union throughout TNG Seasons One, Two, Three, and Four, yet the entire Federation didn't suffer. Hell, all of STARFLEET didn't suffer. The Federation had more than enough resources to fight to protect its worlds and win without imposing major hardship on all of the Federation and without risking a much larger war.
And why should the rest of the Federation go to war to help a relatively few colonists? Because there was no other way to protect those colonists' rights, and if the Federation won't protect a FEW people's rights, what reason do the rest of the Federation's citizens have to think that it will protect THEIR rights? An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
In the year 1845, the middle of the Rio Grande river was established as part of the America southern boarder, by the year 1970, through natural and artificial movements, the river was no longer in the same place. In order to maintain the river as the boarder, the Boarder Treaty of 1970 exchanged thousands of acres of land between America and Mexico. In one place on the boarder two thousand acres of developed agricultural land was given to Mexico.
The final provision of the treaty transferred the Texas city of Rio Rico to Mexico in 1977.
The resident were never asked if this is what they wanted.
Originally, all resident of Rio Rico were to lose their US citizenship and be deported in place. However, after a lawsuit, the U.S. courts ruled that all residents born in Rio Rico between 1906 (when the river moved) and the 1977 handover could retain their U.S. citizenship. The majority of the residents choose to emigrate to America as full citizens.
But what if.
What if the residents the town of of Rio Rico had formed a Rio Rico Maquis in 1977? What if they had attacked Mexican military, police and civilians in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas and had also fought against American law enforcement, FBI, Boarder patrol and police (they were American citizens) in the Texas county of Hidalgo (where Rio Rico use to be)? What if they were receiving material support from within America? Should those individuals be subject to prosecution?
Where would your sympathies be then?
While Mexico isn't a antagonist or a enemy, they are a foreign power. Do you feel that the Rio Rico Maquis would be justified in attempting the force the nation of Mexico to release their town back to them? To cede it from Mexico? And if they did seceded in their efforts, do you honestly believe that America would then agree to extend the boarders to enclose this town?
Against the provisions of a treaty America sought and signed?
Please.
Similar threads
