Wow. Having a crew of Starfleet and Romulans would've been very interesting. And everyone knows who Romulans are; no need for much explanation. Though I guess for people watching an occasionally episode would need to be reminded why there are Romulans on the ship (just as they frequently reminded the view how far they were from Earth).
I don't "get" the Maquis at all. Please explain them for me.
- Thread starter Cepstrum
- Start date
The Maquis were a rebel group of Federation citizens who objected the Federation government giving their settlements to the Cardassians. They are a small group that fights basically a guerilla war against both the Feds and the Cardassians.
The treaty is bullcrap and the Feds did not take their citizens in account. The Feds were suing for peace with the Cardassians. The Feds did not take the their citizen's rights in their negotiations, they wanted peace in face of threats against the Romulans and an unstable Klingon Empire.
The Feds are trying to save them from the Cardassians. The Cardassians are as patient as they can, but they will eventually take what is theirs on a treaty. Fair enough. The villagers did not want to gove up their homes. Their government failed them. This is really a good story because this happens on Earth quite a bit.
Michael Eddington was a tragic character. He was a sneaky, greasy fk who went against the heroic Federation, but was fighting for what he believed him. Sisko and Eddington was a lot like the show "The Fugitive". It did not matter what Eddington's intentions were, he was a criminal in the Federation of Planets and Sisko was the one who had to bring him in.
The actor who played Eddington was great and played his role well, but he was a dk. He brought out the worst in Sisko. The Sisko character was someone who does not quit and refuses to. Eddington made him mad personally. Maybe because Eddington made a fool out of him and it, to Sisko was personal. Sisko might have thought personally that the Maquis has an argument, but the treaty has to be signed and it must be enforced.
The character flaw in Sisko was that he was obsessive and he keeps resentments. He's a very obsessive person and does not let shit go. Archer in Enterprise was like that too. Kirk not so much. He would of let the Maquis run loose, especially of they were keeping an enemy at bay.
The treaty is bullcrap and the Feds did not take their citizens in account. The Feds were suing for peace with the Cardassians. The Feds did not take the their citizen's rights in their negotiations, they wanted peace in face of threats against the Romulans and an unstable Klingon Empire.
The Feds are trying to save them from the Cardassians. The Cardassians are as patient as they can, but they will eventually take what is theirs on a treaty. Fair enough. The villagers did not want to gove up their homes. Their government failed them. This is really a good story because this happens on Earth quite a bit.
Michael Eddington was a tragic character. He was a sneaky, greasy fk who went against the heroic Federation, but was fighting for what he believed him. Sisko and Eddington was a lot like the show "The Fugitive". It did not matter what Eddington's intentions were, he was a criminal in the Federation of Planets and Sisko was the one who had to bring him in.
The actor who played Eddington was great and played his role well, but he was a dk. He brought out the worst in Sisko. The Sisko character was someone who does not quit and refuses to. Eddington made him mad personally. Maybe because Eddington made a fool out of him and it, to Sisko was personal. Sisko might have thought personally that the Maquis has an argument, but the treaty has to be signed and it must be enforced.
The character flaw in Sisko was that he was obsessive and he keeps resentments. He's a very obsessive person and does not let shit go. Archer in Enterprise was like that too. Kirk not so much. He would of let the Maquis run loose, especially of they were keeping an enemy at bay.
Eddington said in an episode that the Maquis had declared themselves as an independent nation. They had no desire to return to the Federation.
If they had done that, then the Cardassians would have had the ability to intensify their assaults on the newly formed DMZ Worlds Government. They'd no longer be under DMZ protection for Fed citizens, they'd all be legitimate targets, etc.
It'd be like when the Sri Lankan government recognized the Tamil Tigers as a legitimate political faction. Since they were now legitimate, the government could now treat them as more than mere freedom fighters and use real military force on them, crushing them immediately.
Of course, this is discounting the constant Klingon attacks and their likely support of the Maquis to further weaken Cardassia.
It'd be like when the Sri Lankan government recognized the Tamil Tigers as a legitimate political faction. Since they were now legitimate, the government could now treat them as more than mere freedom fighters and use real military force on them, crushing them immediately.
Of course, this is discounting the constant Klingon attacks and their likely support of the Maquis to further weaken Cardassia.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Interesting note: Mr. Mott, the Bolian barber on TNG, told an annoyed Picard in "Ensign Ro", among other things (such as how better to deal with Romulans), that he had warned you [Picard] that people shouldn't be allowed to colonize so close to the Cardassian border.
That implies two things:
1. Starfleet permitted or gave their assent to the settlers, which I would think cause the settlers later to be quite frustrated at Starfleet's reneging.
2. Mr. Mott is quite prescient. Maybe he should've been an admiral instead of a barber.
And why would anyone let a hairless Bolian cut his/her hair? All Bolians are hairless, so where do their barbers train? At a Bolian styling salon school?
I'm trying to figure out how a young Bolian would want to grow up to be a hair stylist. It couldn't run in the family. Maybe Starfleet Academy has a styling school for those who can't make it through officer school or voluntarily drop out.
That implies two things:
1. Starfleet permitted or gave their assent to the settlers, which I would think cause the settlers later to be quite frustrated at Starfleet's reneging.
2. Mr. Mott is quite prescient. Maybe he should've been an admiral instead of a barber.
And why would anyone let a hairless Bolian cut his/her hair? All Bolians are hairless, so where do their barbers train? At a Bolian styling salon school?
I'm trying to figure out how a young Bolian would want to grow up to be a hair stylist. It couldn't run in the family. Maybe Starfleet Academy has a styling school for those who can't make it through officer school or voluntarily drop out.
Now that I think about it, the far more puzzling problems are where do hairless Bolians get an interest in hair styling and why is Picard shown getting haircuts? They have sonic showers, replicators, holodecks, transporters, etc., but they don't have a device that can assist Picard with trimming his meager amount of hair?
No matter how you cut it, they seemed to have been warned about settling there and did it anyway.
Bajorans, I can understand, because of their situation, but humans or other Federation members?
They decided to settle in a potentially hostile area because of the "challenge?"
Isn't that taking the idea a little too far?
As long as you have replicators, technology, and big choice of other lush, inhabitable planets to choose from, why make a choice to move there after being informed about the situation??
By the way the barber thing is good nit ...
Bajorans, I can understand, because of their situation, but humans or other Federation members?
They decided to settle in a potentially hostile area because of the "challenge?"
Isn't that taking the idea a little too far?
As long as you have replicators, technology, and big choice of other lush, inhabitable planets to choose from, why make a choice to move there after being informed about the situation??
By the way the barber thing is good nit ...
It does make some sense. If they were already somewhat thrill-seekers who were rejecting Fed advice, then it makes some sense they'd be more predisposed to forming their own private militia and then attacking the Feds as well as the Cardies instead of suing for peace when they had the chance.
That analyses makes sense, but if you're a 24th century Federation citizen looking to settle someplace, and you have a map, a warning from Starfleet and know about Cardassian history, how can you possibly end up there???
Could it be that behind all this, these people are just thrill seekers?
Now with Star Wars it would make slightly more sense, since food doesn't come machines, and they use money, options are more limited.
But with the Trek universe, it kind of hard to understand why settlers with these advantages would deliberately put themselves in harm's way, which is what happened eventually.
The one question I do have is, were all the colonies in the DMZ settled under the same circumstances?
In short, I do wonder why Picard is visiting the barber....
Could it be that behind all this, these people are just thrill seekers?
Now with Star Wars it would make slightly more sense, since food doesn't come machines, and they use money, options are more limited.
But with the Trek universe, it kind of hard to understand why settlers with these advantages would deliberately put themselves in harm's way, which is what happened eventually.
The one question I do have is, were all the colonies in the DMZ settled under the same circumstances?
In short, I do wonder why Picard is visiting the barber....
Last edited:
Actually, there's no evidence that Cardassians were expansionists before the 2320s. It's entirely possible that before they made their claims to the worlds in what later became the DMZ area, they'd never given the Federation any problems.
We don't know, but there is no evidence that all were.
They probably didn't think they were putting themselves in harm's way. More than likely, the Federation had claimed these uninhabited worlds and Federates settled and created communities, and then the Cardassians came along saying, "This is ours!" Dorvan V may well have been the exception in that regard.
And even if the Cardassians had claimed those worlds before, that doesn't mean that their claim was ever considered a legitimate claim by the Federation and its citizenry. If those worlds had been claimed by the Federation for decades before the Cardassians began making their claims to them, and if the Cardassians had not had a history of violent expansionism prior to the 2320s, I can easily see Federation citizens in the early 24th Century settling there, thinking the Cardassians were engaging in pure bluster and that the Federation would always protect them.
^^^
in addition, Sci, they probably expected there'd be no trouble in dealing with a Cardassian threat, for Cardassian tech and warfare ability are far behind that of Starfleet's (and Klingons' or Romulans'). So it probably came as a shock that Starfleet, despite completely winning the war, would concede so much territory.
Wasn't there a similar problem after the Russo-Japanese war in which the latter were utterly victorious but gained nothing? I think that sowed resentment and eventually caused the rise of Militarism in early 20th century Japan. Right? So I can see why the Federation citizens would be dumbfounded and feel betrayed when, after their side won, their military gave away their homes, failed to protect those they didn't give away, and actively campaigned against the Maquis for attempting to do Starfleet's job. Does anyone agree with that analogy?
But I agree with Grandpa Joe Sisko when he bemoaned the fact that, despite the incredible vastness of space, the various powers still fought over territory. He seemed to think there was plenty of "space" for everyone. So it is sad that the Cardassians and Maquis couldn't settle things peacefully.
Earth is quite a bit different, for the ratio of habitable land to people is miniscule compared to the Trek galaxy, in which M class planets abound.
And will we ever understand the mysterious nature of Bolians? I wonder what Bolius is like. Perhaps it's filled with creatures they keep as pets thar require frequent hair trimmings, and the Bolians see other races similarly (Mott also gave Worf haircuts.).
And I wonder how Bolians got involved with the Maquis but (evidently) no Andorians did. They strike me as the kind of people who would be drawn to such a challenge. And I also find it curious how Vulcans became involved. Wouldn't they have no emotion to drive their seemingly hopeless cause and give up because it's logical that they'd eventually lose (except for the brief time during the Klingon invasion, when they were free from attack and even received aid from the Klingons that Starfleet had withheld)? I'd think Vulcans would be the least likely people to participate.
in addition, Sci, they probably expected there'd be no trouble in dealing with a Cardassian threat, for Cardassian tech and warfare ability are far behind that of Starfleet's (and Klingons' or Romulans'). So it probably came as a shock that Starfleet, despite completely winning the war, would concede so much territory.
Wasn't there a similar problem after the Russo-Japanese war in which the latter were utterly victorious but gained nothing? I think that sowed resentment and eventually caused the rise of Militarism in early 20th century Japan. Right? So I can see why the Federation citizens would be dumbfounded and feel betrayed when, after their side won, their military gave away their homes, failed to protect those they didn't give away, and actively campaigned against the Maquis for attempting to do Starfleet's job. Does anyone agree with that analogy?
But I agree with Grandpa Joe Sisko when he bemoaned the fact that, despite the incredible vastness of space, the various powers still fought over territory. He seemed to think there was plenty of "space" for everyone. So it is sad that the Cardassians and Maquis couldn't settle things peacefully.
Earth is quite a bit different, for the ratio of habitable land to people is miniscule compared to the Trek galaxy, in which M class planets abound.
And will we ever understand the mysterious nature of Bolians? I wonder what Bolius is like. Perhaps it's filled with creatures they keep as pets thar require frequent hair trimmings, and the Bolians see other races similarly (Mott also gave Worf haircuts.).
And I wonder how Bolians got involved with the Maquis but (evidently) no Andorians did. They strike me as the kind of people who would be drawn to such a challenge. And I also find it curious how Vulcans became involved. Wouldn't they have no emotion to drive their seemingly hopeless cause and give up because it's logical that they'd eventually lose (except for the brief time during the Klingon invasion, when they were free from attack and even received aid from the Klingons that Starfleet had withheld)? I'd think Vulcans would be the least likely people to participate.
Last edited:
I'm sure that the Maquis included plenty of Andorians and Tellarites. Hell, it even included Betazoids.
Logic is not a prescriptive value system; it is a means of reasoning and nothing more. The conclusions that logic will allow us to arrive at are always dependent upon the premises from which they begin.
If a Vulcan relies on the premise that the Cardassians had no right to attack him after they had promised to allow him to stay on his world now under Cardassian jurisdiction, and upon the premise that it is necessary to use violence to protect one's rights if one has been persecuted, that Vulcan may well decide that it is illogical not to join the Maquis.
In other words, what course of action you arrive at logically depends upon your pre-existing value system.
^^^
you're right, Sci. In fact, you can have a completely sound logical argument/conclusion that is wrong/invalid, if one or more of the premises is wrong.
I'm not saying the Vulcans are wrong, just that their logic could be flawless and lead to differing conclusions. It all depends on the premises.
Logic is not equivalent to correctness or even rationality. It's just a system of drawing conclusions based on premises rather than ad hoc or emotional methods.
My mistake was this: I just assumed the principal priority in a Vulcan's life would be survival. If it were, then he/she would get out of the DMZ. If were not and were instead something such as "loyalty to my comrades", "not betraying my community to avoid risk", or "behaving in a way that reflects what I believe is morally correct", than clearly, that Vulcan would stay and assist.
you're right, Sci. In fact, you can have a completely sound logical argument/conclusion that is wrong/invalid, if one or more of the premises is wrong.
I'm not saying the Vulcans are wrong, just that their logic could be flawless and lead to differing conclusions. It all depends on the premises.
Logic is not equivalent to correctness or even rationality. It's just a system of drawing conclusions based on premises rather than ad hoc or emotional methods.
My mistake was this: I just assumed the principal priority in a Vulcan's life would be survival. If it were, then he/she would get out of the DMZ. If were not and were instead something such as "loyalty to my comrades", "not betraying my community to avoid risk", or "behaving in a way that reflects what I believe is morally correct", than clearly, that Vulcan would stay and assist.
Last edited:
Yep.
Vulcans are many things, but first and foremost, they are people. And people always have many different motives from individual to individual; it's not more accurate to stereotype Vulcans as being primarily interested in survival than it is to say such of Humans (or Andorians or Tellarites or what-have-you). People are different, and there's no universal value that all -- or even most -- will hold.
But wouldn't a Vulcan say it isn't logical to settle on a planet that is already in dispute by a hostile power?
One problem I have with this, is that the episodes seem inconsistent with whether the Maquis are Federation citizens, or whether they gave it up.
One episode says they left the Federation, another says they're still citizens, it zig zags..
One says they're Fed citizens living on the Cardassian side, another says they gave up their citizenship to exist under Cardassian jurisdiction.
So it's hard to tell which colonists are which, and what situation they are coming from...
One problem I have with this, is that the episodes seem inconsistent with whether the Maquis are Federation citizens, or whether they gave it up.
One episode says they left the Federation, another says they're still citizens, it zig zags..
One says they're Fed citizens living on the Cardassian side, another says they gave up their citizenship to exist under Cardassian jurisdiction.
So it's hard to tell which colonists are which, and what situation they are coming from...
Again, that would depend upon the premises and values that that individual Vulcan holds to. Certainly some would conclude that it's not logical to settle on the worlds near the Cardassian border. Others would not. You can no more stereotype what "a Vulcan" would think about a given issue than you can what "an Israeli" or "an Englishman" or "a Nepali" would think.
It's almost like maybe there are a hell of a lot of people who live on a hell of a lot of worlds and they can't all be stereotyped or something. Go figure!
^^^
with re to Vulcans and logic, Sci is correct. Simply making all your decisions based on logic tells us little about what conclusions you'll draw. Furthermore, Vulcans aren't like Data; they do have emotions. They try to suppress them to varying degrees of success.
But back to logic. Here's an example of a perfectly logical conclusion that is nonetheless incorrect:
Premise 1: all Americans love baseball.
Premise 2: all people who love baseball have a favorite team.
Premise 3: baseball fans favorite team is the one closest to their home.
Premise 4: Bob lives in Boston.
Conclusion: Therefore, Bob's favorite team is the Boston Red Sox.
That is an unsound argument, for its premises are incorrect. But it's logically valid; no fallacies are present.
Now, I'm not saying that Vulcans who are part of the Maquis are incorrect and using unsound — yet logically valid — arguments. I'm just using an extreme/absurd example to illustrate that applying logic does not lead to foregone conclusions, unless everyone assumes the same premises.
Again, logic, generally speaking, is only a system of making deductions (or inductive reasoning) based on assumptions and certain rules.
Obviously, the Vulcans in the Maquis applied logic to determine participation was the logical conclusion. (Unless there were some Vulcans present who rejected Surak's teachings and were emotional.)
with re to Vulcans and logic, Sci is correct. Simply making all your decisions based on logic tells us little about what conclusions you'll draw. Furthermore, Vulcans aren't like Data; they do have emotions. They try to suppress them to varying degrees of success.
But back to logic. Here's an example of a perfectly logical conclusion that is nonetheless incorrect:
Premise 1: all Americans love baseball.
Premise 2: all people who love baseball have a favorite team.
Premise 3: baseball fans favorite team is the one closest to their home.
Premise 4: Bob lives in Boston.
Conclusion: Therefore, Bob's favorite team is the Boston Red Sox.
That is an unsound argument, for its premises are incorrect. But it's logically valid; no fallacies are present.
Now, I'm not saying that Vulcans who are part of the Maquis are incorrect and using unsound — yet logically valid — arguments. I'm just using an extreme/absurd example to illustrate that applying logic does not lead to foregone conclusions, unless everyone assumes the same premises.
Again, logic, generally speaking, is only a system of making deductions (or inductive reasoning) based on assumptions and certain rules.
Obviously, the Vulcans in the Maquis applied logic to determine participation was the logical conclusion. (Unless there were some Vulcans present who rejected Surak's teachings and were emotional.)
Similar threads
