"Irlene! Git back in the trailer NOW! I ain't gonna tell ya again! Don't make me lock yew out! Then I ain't gonna give you Maquis!"
I don't "get" the Maquis at all. Please explain them for me.
- Thread starter Cepstrum
- Start date
"Irlene! Git back in the trailer NOW! I ain't gonna tell ya again! Don't make me lock yew out! Then I ain't gonna give you Maquis!"
So the Federation government revoked the colonists' "citizenship rights," without revoking their actual "citizenship?" Interesting.
Why not? The U.S. government's been trying to do that to any of its citizens it accuses of supporting terrorism for a long time, now. Governments often indulge in the urge to restrict their citizens' rights without taking away actual citizenship.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of the demilitarized zone. The episode said "Neither side will be permitted to place military outposts, conduct fleet exercises, or station warships anywhere in the demilitarized area." Both Starfleet and Cardassian warships can enter the "their" zone,
Starfleet can go into the DMZ on the Federation side of the border.
Cardassians can go into the DMZ on the Union side of the border.
They just can't stay in the DMZ for long periods of time, nor can they cross the border into the other's space. The border isn't in any way "amorphous," there is a well defined official boundary, the two respective DMZ's exist as a layer on either side.
Starfleet could patrol and police the DMZ on the Federation side as needed to deal with piracy and organized crime, obviously they entered it to combat the maquis (organized crime). But these ships were stationed outside the DMZ.
Last edited:
Thanks, T'Girl, for helping me with my question about Eddington. Now if I could just get someone to answer my other questions...... 
I was reading through a similar argument that was specifically related to Sisko's actions. They were likened to a US Navy captain threatening to launch a bunch of submarine nukes over a major portion of Montana unless a certain leader of a separatist movement surrendered himself.
Obviously, any naval captain who threatened to do that would be court-marshalled and imprisoned. In fact, even if a higher ranking commander ordered the sub captain to launch his missiles, I believe he would have to refuse such an order less he be prosecuted (the excuse of "just following orders" is unacceptable in world standards today).
The fact that Sisko did roughly the equivalent thing with NO repercussions is interesting. Perhaps the UFP's "enlightened" system means letting Starfleet (which is essentially the military) do just about whatever it wants. (SF conducts civilian trials, apparently polices Earth, and is responsible for almost all diplomatic events. Few civilians, other than a couple of ambassadors and the UFP president seem to have much power.)
No modern First-World country allows their military *any* authority in internal affairs (at least none of the West does). Specifically, in the US, the military cannot (lawfully) exercise *any* authority over anyone except its own personnel. Even the CIA is *supposed* to be unable to act against citizens (I know people are starting to question that since 9/11, but I'm not here to stir up controversy. I don't know exactly what their activities in the US are, but they're supposed to let the federal civilian police, the FBI, take care of internal affairs and crimes.)
In a few extraordinary circumstances, states and the federal government utilize the paramilitary National Guard, such as in mass riots or to enforce/protect the rights of minorities in anti-black Southern states in the 1950s. Normally, however, it's almost always local riot police who handle riots and mass public disturbances etc.
But *never* is the US military allowed to participate. I believe this is to ensure that the military is divorced from politics and to keep it from seizing power.
Now, if that applies to the very imperfect modern US government, why does the Federation take such a heavy-handed approach and grant its military to do almost everything? It's quite scary when you think about it: Starfleet put Bashir's civilian father in prison, and Starfleet got to make the call on whether Data was sentient or could be dismantled against his wishes for research. There was no civilian oversight. I can think of only three explanations:
1. The UFP is really not a classical liberal democracy and instead is a form of extreme/radical socialism in which the State controls almost everything and freedoms are curtailed. Kind of a "benevolent dictatorship/autocracy". I say benevolent because there doesn't appear to be a lot of abuses and instead the population, while controlled, is quite content.
2. Budgetary reasons forced the producers to have all Federation representatives be Starfleet officers, as well as police (eg, in Paradise Lost).
3. The writers neither grasped the concept that Starfleet is not the Federation nor that enlightened democracies of even today do not give their military such power.
OK, one more:
4. Because the UFP is such a paradise, everyone's fine (except for groups like the Maquis) with letting Starfleet run everything; ie, they trust it implicitly.
This is a little deviation from the Maquis issue, but I believe it's relevant perhaps to assist in understanding why so many disaffected but distinguished Starfleet officers defected to the Maquis. Maybe they saw Starfleet as abusing its power by, eg, showing up to forcibly remove settlers instead of first sending in civilian leaders, judges, and lawyers to negotiate. Instead they just sent in heavily armed starships and had captains show up to announce they must leave: AFAIK, that's how the settlers in the DMZ found out about it (I think that's how it happened in the TNG episode with the Indian settlers as well as the DS9 episode in which Hudson and Sisko were the ones to tell the settlers to leave — or else.)
I very much hope to feedback from you guys. I highly value your insight. If I don't get a response, perhaps I'll start a new thread to discuss whether the power of Starfleet soured relations with the settlers-turned-Maquis as well as causing a number of Starfleet officers to either provide aid or actively join (such as Eddington, Chakotay, Ro, and Hudson). Also why civilians such as Kassidy Yates, who apparently had no ties to the DMZ, would risk herself by smuggling them supplies.
Thanks again for your consideration. I hope to hear from you soon! (If not, I might have to start a new thread to address this topic of Starfleet's power.)
Regards,
Cepstrum
I was reading through a similar argument that was specifically related to Sisko's actions. They were likened to a US Navy captain threatening to launch a bunch of submarine nukes over a major portion of Montana unless a certain leader of a separatist movement surrendered himself.
Obviously, any naval captain who threatened to do that would be court-marshalled and imprisoned. In fact, even if a higher ranking commander ordered the sub captain to launch his missiles, I believe he would have to refuse such an order less he be prosecuted (the excuse of "just following orders" is unacceptable in world standards today).
The fact that Sisko did roughly the equivalent thing with NO repercussions is interesting. Perhaps the UFP's "enlightened" system means letting Starfleet (which is essentially the military) do just about whatever it wants. (SF conducts civilian trials, apparently polices Earth, and is responsible for almost all diplomatic events. Few civilians, other than a couple of ambassadors and the UFP president seem to have much power.)
No modern First-World country allows their military *any* authority in internal affairs (at least none of the West does). Specifically, in the US, the military cannot (lawfully) exercise *any* authority over anyone except its own personnel. Even the CIA is *supposed* to be unable to act against citizens (I know people are starting to question that since 9/11, but I'm not here to stir up controversy. I don't know exactly what their activities in the US are, but they're supposed to let the federal civilian police, the FBI, take care of internal affairs and crimes.)
In a few extraordinary circumstances, states and the federal government utilize the paramilitary National Guard, such as in mass riots or to enforce/protect the rights of minorities in anti-black Southern states in the 1950s. Normally, however, it's almost always local riot police who handle riots and mass public disturbances etc.
But *never* is the US military allowed to participate. I believe this is to ensure that the military is divorced from politics and to keep it from seizing power.
Now, if that applies to the very imperfect modern US government, why does the Federation take such a heavy-handed approach and grant its military to do almost everything? It's quite scary when you think about it: Starfleet put Bashir's civilian father in prison, and Starfleet got to make the call on whether Data was sentient or could be dismantled against his wishes for research. There was no civilian oversight. I can think of only three explanations:
1. The UFP is really not a classical liberal democracy and instead is a form of extreme/radical socialism in which the State controls almost everything and freedoms are curtailed. Kind of a "benevolent dictatorship/autocracy". I say benevolent because there doesn't appear to be a lot of abuses and instead the population, while controlled, is quite content.
2. Budgetary reasons forced the producers to have all Federation representatives be Starfleet officers, as well as police (eg, in Paradise Lost).
3. The writers neither grasped the concept that Starfleet is not the Federation nor that enlightened democracies of even today do not give their military such power.
OK, one more:
4. Because the UFP is such a paradise, everyone's fine (except for groups like the Maquis) with letting Starfleet run everything; ie, they trust it implicitly.
This is a little deviation from the Maquis issue, but I believe it's relevant perhaps to assist in understanding why so many disaffected but distinguished Starfleet officers defected to the Maquis. Maybe they saw Starfleet as abusing its power by, eg, showing up to forcibly remove settlers instead of first sending in civilian leaders, judges, and lawyers to negotiate. Instead they just sent in heavily armed starships and had captains show up to announce they must leave: AFAIK, that's how the settlers in the DMZ found out about it (I think that's how it happened in the TNG episode with the Indian settlers as well as the DS9 episode in which Hudson and Sisko were the ones to tell the settlers to leave — or else.)
I very much hope to feedback from you guys. I highly value your insight. If I don't get a response, perhaps I'll start a new thread to discuss whether the power of Starfleet soured relations with the settlers-turned-Maquis as well as causing a number of Starfleet officers to either provide aid or actively join (such as Eddington, Chakotay, Ro, and Hudson). Also why civilians such as Kassidy Yates, who apparently had no ties to the DMZ, would risk herself by smuggling them supplies.
Thanks again for your consideration. I hope to hear from you soon! (If not, I might have to start a new thread to address this topic of Starfleet's power.)
Regards,
Cepstrum
Last edited:
The planet Sisko poisoned had no other inhabitants other than the maquis, Sisko gave the maquis and their camp followers plenty of notice, he knew ahead of time that they had ready transportation off world and finally, the poison would naturally dissipate in fifty years.
The end result of Sisko's actions was the capture of a major maquis leader, not one life was ever actual placed in risk in the least little way, why would Sisko be disciplined?
The episode original aired in 1997, from our perspective the planet will be free of poison in another 37 years, not much different than the FBI tossing in some tear gas.
I very much doubt what happened in Sisko's case was your standard Starfleet behaviour. Had it been any other captain (not the Bajoran Emissary and the prime expert on the Dominion) and any other situation, I'm sure Starfleet would have issued proper punishment. If you ask me, what he did in that episode is probably the most reprehensible thing our heroes have ever done and the fact he got away scot-free is a huge failing of the episode.
You may get such an impression from watching some episodes, but I very much doubt that was the writer's intention. And I think all of those cases can be explained.
Bashir's dad - Starfleet JAG originally got involved because the case was primarilly about Bashir, a Starfleet officer. I very much doubt Starfleet conducted the trial, they just passed him along to proper civilian authorities. The offer to admit the crime in order to let Bashir stay in Starfleet was probably made in cooperation by both Starfleet JAG and the civilian authorities, we saw a Starfleet admiral announce it cause it was a Starfleet outpost after all, etc. Anyways, that very episode mentions the Federation Supreme Court, which if the name is to go by, is a civilian court.
Paradise Lost - a state of emergency was announced and there was a threat of iminent invasion. I don't think we can take this case as a representation on how things are ordinarily done.
Data - IIRC, the question was whether he was a member or property of Starfleet. In each case, it's Starfleet that's primarily involved. And it's very possible the decision could have been fought all the way to the civilian Supreme Court.
Dorvan V - Starfleet was just following orders by the Federation Council, it's civilian overlord. And colonists' representatives were involved in the process of making that decision.
And so on.
thanks, neozeks and T'Girl.
I see your point about the audience being limited to seeing Starfleet, for the characters we follow are all Starfleet personnel. And bringing in additional civilian government officials would cost more, take up time, and most importantly, likely create confusion and the need for additional expository detail.
Still, about the martial law imposed on Earth: I would think the police or a militia — not Starfleet personnel — would handle that. But I can see a reason why it was Starfleet: perhaps crime is so uncommon and Starfleet so trusted (they're not primarily a military but rather an armed exploration force), that the people of Earth have no problem with Starfleet handling policing. After all, Starfleet handles many things: space exploration, extensive scientific research, diplomatic relations (though they probably share that duty with civilian ambassadors, when it's feasible for such an ambassador present — space is too big and dangerous to have embassies on every planet), even trade negotiations (recall Riker bidding for the failed wormhole).
Now that I think about it, Starfleet is hardly comparable to any modern-day military. They're really kind of a quasi-sub/government. They comprise many branches of what a typical government is responsible for. The fact that they arm their ships is primarily for defense, and it's pretty clear that at least 24th century Starfleet has nothing equivalent to a modern marine/army force. Their crew *do* know how to handle phasers, but aside from the MACOs in Enterprise, they seem to be poorly equipped and trained for ground combat.
So I guess there really isn't much to worry about after all. Hmm.
In terms of declaring martial law (ML) on Earth , I figure one of three things could have happen.
1) The Federation government can declare ML basically any where they choose and the member planets have no say in the matter, the Federation can "nationalize" local military and police forces and have Starfleet assume direct control.
2) The Federation government declaring ML on Earth was a special case, special power, because the Federation government is located upon Earth (as is Starfleet command). However the Federation government lacks this power on all other member planets. Much like the US Federal government has special powers within the city of Washington DC that it lack in all other cities.
3) The member states (like United Earth) have to formally ask the Federation to declare ML, the way a current US Governor has to ask the US President first before the President can declare a federal state of emergency in that state (the US President btw lacks the power to declare ML).
In addition, member planets would have the ability to declare ML internally, without involving the Federation government.
Last edited:
Actually, I think the writers mentioned they wanted to show United Earth and it's forces (the National Guard of a sorts) involved but the episode got too complicated so they left that out. But since we only saw a very very very small portion of Earth in the episode (only SF and New Orleans) it's not impossible other more local forces were present. And since the main threat wasn't so much civil disorder but an outside invasion it makes sense to have your military on the ground. Police are hardly equiped to fight Jem'Hadar.
We did see something like ground forces in a couple of DS9 episodes (those black uniformed guys). I prefer to think Starfleet does have a modestly sized ground force.
Someone in the TrekLit forum once used what I think is a good description for Starfleet - it's a 'military+'.
T'Girl: your points about the various ways martial law might be handled was excellent. I completely agree with your points.
neozeks: and your point about martial law being declared because of an *external* military threat does make it more plausible that Starfleet would be used to counter such a threat.
About SF's ground forces: from the little I've seen of them in DS9, they didn't strike as being particularly militaristic or nearly as competent as other soldiers we've seen. To me it almost liked Starfleet ship officers being given weapons — but not much else (eg tactical training/suppression fire, body armor to protect against shrapnel...)
but overall, you both made satisfying points. Thanks!
neozeks: and your point about martial law being declared because of an *external* military threat does make it more plausible that Starfleet would be used to counter such a threat.
About SF's ground forces: from the little I've seen of them in DS9, they didn't strike as being particularly militaristic or nearly as competent as other soldiers we've seen. To me it almost liked Starfleet ship officers being given weapons — but not much else (eg tactical training/suppression fire, body armor to protect against shrapnel...)
but overall, you both made satisfying points. Thanks!
About the Homefront/Paradise Lost thing: There was supposed to be a scene where United Earth (not Starfleet) troops are 'federalized' and called to assist in the crisis. But they either didn't have the time or budget (or both) to do it.
I got in trouble around here a while back when I suggested that, instead of simply being a executive branch government department, Starfleet was basically part of a separate branch (fourth branch) of government, which also contained the State Department, the old British colonial office, FBI, commerce department, other things.
In DS9 we saw Starfleet personnel doing FBI style investigations, very civilian sector stuff, I think it was Prodigal Daughter.
But the investigation wasn't of Doctor Bashir was it? It was an investigation of the actions of the parents. It possible that when it comes to the Federation, Starfleet is a "civilian authority."
Partly, it was, because Bashir lied about his genetic enhancements when joining Starfleet. And part of the deal with Bashir's dad was that Starfleet JAG wasn't going to prosecute Bashir for that if Bashir's dad admits his crime (presumably in front of a civilian court).
I wouldn't say you got in trouble. Nah. I certainly didn't intend to persecute you or something. Did I personally strenuously oppose that view? Yeah, for reasons I laid out as best I could back then, but it's not like I roasted you on a gridiron.
We argued...And if one had to declare a winner, it was either inconclusive or I won by sheer endurance.
Point is, for Cepstrum or others, that the issue of civil control of Starfleet, indeed the very notion of what Starfleet is and how it relates to the Federation government, is a very-much-debated and debatable topic. Canon Trek, I think it is fair to say, leaves the issue(s) in such a state that fans applying even basic Fridge Logic to it are liable to be confused, probably left with a pounding headache. I personally am not sure there is any hope of a satisfactory answer if one sticks to canon sources. Even adding in the novels doesn't produce a great deal of clarity.
I expect that the mindset that took them that far would result in mutual-defense pacts among the most heavily armed star systems in known space. The Cardassians could then come after them again, that'd be "doable," but like a wolf swallowing a porcupine, it wouldn't be worth the pain.
In 200 years, the settlers' g'g'g'great-grandchildren would look back on their ancestors as a temporary mass mental aberration, and rejoin the Federation. By then, the Cardassians would probably be allies, too, (or at least a highly friendly power) a la Klingons. New hostiles with better threat/technologies would be discovered farther afield.
In 200 years, the settlers' g'g'g'great-grandchildren would look back on their ancestors as a temporary mass mental aberration, and rejoin the Federation. By then, the Cardassians would probably be allies, too, (or at least a highly friendly power) a la Klingons. New hostiles with better threat/technologies would be discovered farther afield.
Some refuse to accept the obvious, which is that the Cardassians are Nazis. Therefore, the Maquis are supposed to be anti-Nazis, clearly indicated by repeating a nickname for the French resistance. All the stuff about the settlements is intended to give these fictional anti-Nazis a suitably conservative reason for opposing the Nazis. Real opponents of the Nazis, such as the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, are entirely unsuitable models for conservative Berman Trek. Maquis hostility to the Federation is partly an exploration of Berman Trek's hostility to previous Trek's anti-war, internationalist stance (what could be loosely called Roddenberry Trek.)
The notion that the Federation has no right to cede border territories is absurd. The principle of self-determination does not apply to partial, self selected "communities" but to nations. The United States's right to self determination means the whole population of the US has a right to independence, not that the individual states and municipalities have a right to independence. This perverted notion of self-determination was part of the apologetics for the slaveholders' rebellion.
The notion that property rights are human rights, and therefore the Federation was obligated to defend the Maquis' property explores Berman Trek hostility towards the progressive economic attitudes (never detailed enough to be called ideas, I think,) of "Roddenberry" Trek. The slaveholders' rebellion also demanded the government defend property rights, albeit in human beings. In what sense a handful of colonists can be said to own an entire planet is a mystery, on par with how a person can be said to own another one, or how a single person can be said to own a gigantic factory or whatever.
The Maquis insisted they had the unilateral right to commit the entire Federation to war. That violation of majority rule is an offense to all humane political ideals. Approving of the Maquis is a way to argue that popular majorities opposed to a war (such as the war in Afghanistan is disapproved by the majority,) should be ignored as rabble unable to rise to truly moral behavior.
Also, since the Cardassians are Nazis, the viewer is not supposed to question the morality of war as an instrument of state policy. Nor, obviously, are we to explore whether states will continue to exist, or perhaps become obsolete. The Maquis are Berman Trek's exploration of distaste for the rather cosmopolitan, one world approach of "Roddenberry" Trek. (Roddenberry I guess deserves the credit because he was the only one who cared to claim it, which sugggests to me is that he was the main proponent.)
The Maquis emerged in a Next Generation epsiode, where by an absurdly written story, Picard was pictured as somehow failing morally to support the settlers. Since the US government historically cannot be accused of failing to "protect" settlers (actually, attack American Indians,) the epsiode somehow reimagines Indians as settlers. The stupidity of all this is grotesque, and the Maquis never got a bit smarter.
The Maquis were also referenced in Next Generation in the story of Ro Laren, a Star Fleet officer who abandoned the cosmopolitan, peaceful path of the Federation/Star Fleet, to take up arms against the Nazis. Some have pretended that Ro Laren could be analogous to a Palestinian taking up arms against Israel. Since Cardassia is always equatable to Nazis but never equatable to Israel, while US Jews leaving the US to go to Israel is equatable to Ro Laren leaving Star Fleet, that just shows you how dishonest some posters are.
The TNG orgins of the Maquis show that one aspect is that they are an implicit argument for support for Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
The Israeli Law of Return says that any Jews at all have a claim to Israel, including Russians whose families haven't been observant for decades. Accepting that Jewish people have such a claim is bigoted. Israelis born there might have a claim. But notice that most people would not accept that, for instance, anyh Czech people had a right to Vaclav Havel's property, although it was their grandparents who expropriated his wealthy family's property. The claim that Palestinians forced out by war and state terror, who still have no homes but refugee camps have no right of return is just as bigoted, but blatantly, shamefully cruel as well.
The difficulties in making sense of the Maquis are due to the fact that they are badly written, because a reactionary agenda drives their characterization.
The notion that the Federation has no right to cede border territories is absurd. The principle of self-determination does not apply to partial, self selected "communities" but to nations. The United States's right to self determination means the whole population of the US has a right to independence, not that the individual states and municipalities have a right to independence. This perverted notion of self-determination was part of the apologetics for the slaveholders' rebellion.
The notion that property rights are human rights, and therefore the Federation was obligated to defend the Maquis' property explores Berman Trek hostility towards the progressive economic attitudes (never detailed enough to be called ideas, I think,) of "Roddenberry" Trek. The slaveholders' rebellion also demanded the government defend property rights, albeit in human beings. In what sense a handful of colonists can be said to own an entire planet is a mystery, on par with how a person can be said to own another one, or how a single person can be said to own a gigantic factory or whatever.
The Maquis insisted they had the unilateral right to commit the entire Federation to war. That violation of majority rule is an offense to all humane political ideals. Approving of the Maquis is a way to argue that popular majorities opposed to a war (such as the war in Afghanistan is disapproved by the majority,) should be ignored as rabble unable to rise to truly moral behavior.
Also, since the Cardassians are Nazis, the viewer is not supposed to question the morality of war as an instrument of state policy. Nor, obviously, are we to explore whether states will continue to exist, or perhaps become obsolete. The Maquis are Berman Trek's exploration of distaste for the rather cosmopolitan, one world approach of "Roddenberry" Trek. (Roddenberry I guess deserves the credit because he was the only one who cared to claim it, which sugggests to me is that he was the main proponent.)
The Maquis emerged in a Next Generation epsiode, where by an absurdly written story, Picard was pictured as somehow failing morally to support the settlers. Since the US government historically cannot be accused of failing to "protect" settlers (actually, attack American Indians,) the epsiode somehow reimagines Indians as settlers. The stupidity of all this is grotesque, and the Maquis never got a bit smarter.
The Maquis were also referenced in Next Generation in the story of Ro Laren, a Star Fleet officer who abandoned the cosmopolitan, peaceful path of the Federation/Star Fleet, to take up arms against the Nazis. Some have pretended that Ro Laren could be analogous to a Palestinian taking up arms against Israel. Since Cardassia is always equatable to Nazis but never equatable to Israel, while US Jews leaving the US to go to Israel is equatable to Ro Laren leaving Star Fleet, that just shows you how dishonest some posters are.
The TNG orgins of the Maquis show that one aspect is that they are an implicit argument for support for Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
The Israeli Law of Return says that any Jews at all have a claim to Israel, including Russians whose families haven't been observant for decades. Accepting that Jewish people have such a claim is bigoted. Israelis born there might have a claim. But notice that most people would not accept that, for instance, anyh Czech people had a right to Vaclav Havel's property, although it was their grandparents who expropriated his wealthy family's property. The claim that Palestinians forced out by war and state terror, who still have no homes but refugee camps have no right of return is just as bigoted, but blatantly, shamefully cruel as well.
The difficulties in making sense of the Maquis are due to the fact that they are badly written, because a reactionary agenda drives their characterization.
Hmm, see I equated the Maquis more with Palestinian resistance. It's interesting how people can see them as either side.
One of the most deliciously dark moments in NuBSG was where the humans started blowing up human collaborators and Roslin refused to denounce them. It really strained our sympathies and I hope it made people think about real world situations.
One of the most deliciously dark moments in NuBSG was where the humans started blowing up human collaborators and Roslin refused to denounce them. It really strained our sympathies and I hope it made people think about real world situations.
sti, you clearly have a well-formed view of the Maquis. The trouble is, I'm just a little confused; I hope you don't mind me asking for clarification.
Are you asserting that the Maquis were created to represent a sympathetic resistance group (like the real Maquis), but instead of fighting for progressive ideals (and freedom), they're fighting a racist, totalitarian state for classical liberal/libertarian reasons (unlike the French resistance, who were a mixture of leftists, communists, socialists, and some conservative patriots fighting for liberation)?
That is, the Maquis were supposed to appeal to the more politically conservative American viewers who tend to bristle at the obvious notion that the UFP is a somewhat perfected vision of progressive socialism? And the Maquis represent a pro-war, reactionary element of nationalism and/or colonialism?
Sorry I'm too dense to get your meaning on the first pass.
I certainly agree that we are left with such limited information — we have just enough to make us want to know more, or at least fit it into a known "box" (ie, a known political system). It's hard for most people to not have answers for such questions, which is why we tend to (sometimes subconsciously) ascribe causes to effects when only a correlation (or apparent one) exists. Speaking for myself, I get quite frustrated when I can't explain away most events in daily life!
I wouldn't say you got in trouble. Nah. I certainly didn't intend to persecute you or something. Did I personally strenuously oppose that view? Yeah, for reasons I laid out as best I could back then, but it's not like I roasted you on a gridiron.
We argued...And if one had to declare a winner, it was either inconclusive or I won by sheer endurance.
Point is, for Cepstrum or others, that the issue of civil control of Starfleet, indeed the very notion of what Starfleet is and how it relates to the Federation government, is a very-much-debated and debatable topic. Canon Trek, I think it is fair to say, leaves the issue(s) in such a state that fans applying even basic Fridge Logic to it are liable to be confused, probably left with a pounding headache. I personally am not sure there is any hope of a satisfactory answer if one sticks to canon sources. Even adding in the novels doesn't produce a great deal of clarity.
This is especially true when we employ logical fallacies to "find" patterns in random, independent events or processes. I think that's why superstitions still exist.
Hence my desire to understand the motivation of a fictional organization that was created primarily as a backstory to Voyager!
By the way, I'd be interested to know more about this discussion of whether Starfleet is a "fourth branch" (or fifth, if you count journalists) of government. I actually was considering that the other day. Do you have a link to that thread? Maybe I could find it by searching for all posts with "fourth branch" in them.
sti, you clearly have a well-formed view of the Maquis. The trouble is, I'm just a little confused; I hope you don't mind me asking for clarification.
Are you asserting that the Maquis were created to represent a sympathetic resistance group (like the real Maquis), but instead of fighting for progressive ideals (and freedom), they're fighting a racist, totalitarian state for classical liberal/libertarian reasons (unlike the French resistance, who were a mixture of leftists, communists, socialists, and some conservative patriots fighting for liberation)?
That is, the Maquis were supposed to appeal to the more politically conservative American viewers who tend to bristle at the obvious notion that the UFP is a somewhat perfected vision of progressive socialism? And the Maquis represent a pro-war, reactionary element of nationalism and/or colonialism?
Sorry I'm too dense to get your meaning on the first pass.
You're not dense at all. Your version is a little more categorical than I'd put it, since I think DS9, as Berman's first outing, was not a well written and lack of experience plays a role. But yes, this is basically the way I see it. I do not assume you agree, just that you understand me.
Similar threads
