Insurrection as an episode...

[sonak]

You still don't understand that the Federation has no authority over the Ba'ku as they govern themselves and your advocacy of such a plain and obvious case of imperialism is simply unethical.

I understand that the Federation doesn't govern the Baku. You're stuck on my use of eminent domain, but that was merely an analogy.

And no, it is not "simply unethical," as there are many, many folks out there who agree with me, and there are many ethical systems which would view removing the Baku as the right thing to do.(indeed, probably most would)

Brent Spiner himself criticized the film's ethical viewpoint, as did Roger Ebert in his review of the film. I think the story's bad dilemma is part of the reason the film wasn't very popular.

 

[DonIago]

I won't argue that the Feds would have the right to remove the Baku, but I also think the Baku come off as very morally dubious if they won't let anyone else settle on their entire planet.

I'm surprised nobody's compared them with the Maquis yet.

 

[horatio83]

I understand that the Federation doesn't govern the Baku. You're stuck on my use of eminent domain, but that was merely an analogy.

And no, it is not "simply unethical," as there are many, many folks out there who agree with me, and there are many ethical systems which would view removing the Baku as the right thing to do.(indeed, probably most would)

Brent Spiner himself criticized the film's ethical viewpoint, as did Roger Ebert in his review of the film. I think the story's bad dilemma is part of the reason the film wasn't very popular.

There is no dilemma, just an incredibly simple morality tale like The Drumhead which obviously had to be told if so many people do not understand the constitutions of their countries. I don't care how many folks agree with you and I don't care how direly you have to appeal to majority in order to be able to sell theft, kidnapping and murder.

You advocate that a stronger nation steals an asset from a weaker one and crushes its population in the process instead of politely asking for trade and negotiating for a price.
You can rationalize it all you want via pretending that the stronger nation cares about the common good, imperialism remains imperialism.
By your logic Romulans, Klingons and Feds would have had the right to raid and rape Ba'ku because their empires are large, because trillions of people could gain from the radiation, because they all care about the common good. Bullshit, they merely care about themselves.

I hope you never stand on my door, rush in, trample me down, take something from me and tell me while going out that you value this particular asset more than I do ... and in addition to that you have the audacity to claim that your act were ethical instead of admitting that you are just a petty thief.

 

[sonak]

I understand that the Federation doesn't govern the Baku. You're stuck on my use of eminent domain, but that was merely an analogy.

And no, it is not "simply unethical," as there are many, many folks out there who agree with me, and there are many ethical systems which would view removing the Baku as the right thing to do.(indeed, probably most would)

Brent Spiner himself criticized the film's ethical viewpoint, as did Roger Ebert in his review of the film. I think the story's bad dilemma is part of the reason the film wasn't very popular.

There is no dilemma, just an incredibly simple morality tale like The Drumhead which obviously had to be told if so many people do not understand the constitutions of their countries. I don't care how many folks agree with you and I don't care how direly you have to appeal to majority in order to be able to sell theft, kidnapping and murder.

You advocate that a stronger nation steals an asset from a weaker one and crushes its population in the process instead of politely asking for trade and negotiating for a price.
You can rationalize it all you want via pretending that the stronger nation cares about the common good, imperialism remains imperialism.
By your logic Romulans, Klingons and Feds would have had the right to raid and rape Ba'ku because their empires are large, because trillions of people could gain from the radiation, because they all care about the common good. Bullshit, they merely care about themselves.

I hope you never stand on my door, rush in, trample me down, take something from me and tell me while going out that you value this particular asset more than I do ... and in addition to that you have the audacity to claim that your act were ethical instead of admitting that you are just a petty thief.

I don't think that you're really reading what I'm writing-I agree that they should have tried negotiation, though, but at the time, Dougherty thought they were a group of primitives that fell under the PD. After Picard went down to the planet though, Dougherty should have changed the plan according to the new info.


It's a glaring hole, but of course the real reason this doesn't happen is because if the Baku say no, they lose audience sympathy, and if they say yes, there's no movie. That's why the story of this movie is weak.

 

[Dream]

It's a glaring hole, but of course the real reason this doesn't happen is because if the Baku say no, they lose audience sympathy, and if they say yes, there's no movie. That's why the story of this movie is weak.

Exactly.

Dougherty: "Hey, can you move off this planet so we can research it and develop medicine that might help billions of people in the galaxy?"

Balu: "Hell no. Screw the rest of the galaxy. We have already lived here for 300 years and want to continue to live forever!"

Picard: "Anij is hot! Beverly who?"

 

[lewisniven]

The other glaring hole is that it's a big planet! The baku have one village, ON A WHOLE PLANET. Just bring sick people or people in need of the properties of the planet and stick them on the other side of the world, really.

 

[horatio83]

You forget that nobody cared about any medical innovations, it was just a Rumsfeldian pretext. The main goal was to gain new allies against the Dominion. Picard pointed out that the So'na are a bunch of "petty thugs" while Dougherty arrogantly believed that the mighty Federation could deal with them.
Not incidentally this Federation-centered arrogance is also present in the arguments that view the well-being of the Federation as supreme good in the galaxy. Well, arguments is a euphemism, rationalizations for imperialism is more precise.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

1) You know TV tropes had a debate about whether it was right to relocate the Ba'ku or not and someone mentioned something I found interesting, which is that there was nothing in the film to indicate that the Ba'ku were theses selfish bastards like some fans seem to think.

2) I find it disturbing that some fans not only think that every planet in a certain area belongs to the federation regardless of if the people living their have joined it or not or are not living in a federation colony and that they seem to think this doesn't count as imperialism in any way and that it is in fact a good thing.

The other glaring hole is that it's a big planet! The baku have one village, ON A WHOLE PLANET. Just bring sick people or people in need of the properties of the planet and stick them on the other side of the world, really.

Honestly I get the impression that the Ba'ku probably wouldn't have cared as long as you weren't building the medical facility in the valley they lived in and its not like there weren't other nice placed to put it.

 

[sonak]

1) You know TV tropes had a debate about whether it was right to relocate the Ba'ku or not and someone mentioned something I found interesting, which is that there was nothing in the film to indicate that the Ba'ku were theses selfish bastards like some fans seem to think.

2) I find it disturbing that some fans not only think that every planet in a certain area belongs to the federation regardless of if the people living their have joined it or not or are not living in a federation colony and that they seem to think this doesn't count as imperialism in any way and that it is in fact a good thing.

1. This is simply incorrect. There are many things to indicate this, including the fact that they DIDN'T SHARE WHAT THEY FOUND WITH ANYONE ELSE. And indeed, that there was no indication that they would ever consider doing so.

2. I find it disturbing that some fans think that the property rights of a small village outweighs the welfare of billions, and that by throwing around the buzzword "imperialism," they can obfuscate that central part of the so-called "dilemma."

 

[DonIago]

With regards to point 2, I'll just say that, as with the Maquis, I'd find it a lot more relevant if the movie wasn't set in a universe where relocating 600 people is a hell of a lot easier for all parties concerned than it would be, say, on Earth in the present.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

1) You know TV tropes had a debate about whether it was right to relocate the Ba'ku or not and someone mentioned something I found interesting, which is that there was nothing in the film to indicate that the Ba'ku were theses selfish bastards like some fans seem to think.

2) I find it disturbing that some fans not only think that every planet in a certain area belongs to the federation regardless of if the people living their have joined it or not or are not living in a federation colony and that they seem to think this doesn't count as imperialism in any way and that it is in fact a good thing.

1. This is simply incorrect. There are many things to indicate this, including the fact that they DIDN'T SHARE WHAT THEY FOUND WITH ANYONE ELSE. And indeed, that there was no indication that they would ever consider doing so.

Who were they going to share it with? Nobody seemed particularly inclined to go into the Briar Patch.

2. I find it disturbing that some fans think that the property rights of a small village outweighs the welfare of billions, and that by throwing around the buzzword "imperialism," they can obfuscate that central part of the so-called "dilemma."

It's not their planet. It wasn't colonized by the federation. The Ba'ku never joined the federation.

So how are the Ba'ku subject to the power of an organization that they are not and never were members of?

With regards to point 2, I'll just say that, as with the Maquis, I'd find it a lot more relevant if the movie wasn't set in a universe where relocating 600 people is a hell of a lot easier for all parties concerned than it would be, say, on Earth in the present.

IT'S. NOT. A. FEDERATION. PLANET.

The federation can't claim emanate domain on a sovereign planet. EMANATE DOMAIN DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

What is so hard to grasp about the fact that the Ba'ku aren't part of the federation?

I mean its not like Star Trek didn't go to the trouble of showing how planets become part of the federation or that if a sovereign planet says no the federation that they leave.

 

[sonak]

With regards to point 2, I'll just say that, as with the Maquis, I'd find it a lot more relevant if the movie wasn't set in a universe where relocating 600 people is a hell of a lot easier for all parties concerned than it would be, say, on Earth in the present.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't think the issue was the difficulty or logistics of relocation in either case. The Baku would have simply been unwilling to relocate because it would have meant an end to their lifestyle, and the Maquis because of ideological objections and their perceived connection to the land.

 

[sonak]

1) You know TV tropes had a debate about whether it was right to relocate the Ba'ku or not and someone mentioned something I found interesting, which is that there was nothing in the film to indicate that the Ba'ku were theses selfish bastards like some fans seem to think.

2) I find it disturbing that some fans not only think that every planet in a certain area belongs to the federation regardless of if the people living their have joined it or not or are not living in a federation colony and that they seem to think this doesn't count as imperialism in any way and that it is in fact a good thing.

1. This is simply incorrect. There are many things to indicate this, including the fact that they DIDN'T SHARE WHAT THEY FOUND WITH ANYONE ELSE. And indeed, that there was no indication that they would ever consider doing so.

Who were they going to share it with? Nobody seemed particularly inclined to go into the Briar Patch.

2. I find it disturbing that some fans think that the property rights of a small village outweighs the welfare of billions, and that by throwing around the buzzword "imperialism," they can obfuscate that central part of the so-called "dilemma."

It's not their planet. It wasn't colonized by the federation. The Ba'ku never joined the federation.

So how are the Ba'ku subject to the power of an organization that they are not and never were members of?

With regards to point 2, I'll just say that, as with the Maquis, I'd find it a lot more relevant if the movie wasn't set in a universe where relocating 600 people is a hell of a lot easier for all parties concerned than it would be, say, on Earth in the present.

IT'S. NOT. A. FEDERATION. PLANET.

The federation can't claim emanate domain on a sovereign planet. EMANATE DOMAIN DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

What is so hard to grasp about the fact that the Ba'ku aren't part of the federation?

I mean its not like Star Trek didn't go to the trouble of showing how planets become part of the federation or that if a sovereign planet says no the federation that they leave.

You're still caught up in the eminent domain analogy. It doesn't really matter whether they're technically a Federation planet at all.

 

[DonIago]

With regards to point 2, I'll just say that, as with the Maquis, I'd find it a lot more relevant if the movie wasn't set in a universe where relocating 600 people is a hell of a lot easier for all parties concerned than it would be, say, on Earth in the present.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't think the issue was the difficulty or logistics of relocation in either case. The Baku would have simply been unwilling to relocate because it would have meant an end to their lifestyle, and the Maquis because of ideological objections and their perceived connection to the land.

I think that was my cold talking...I seem to have blanked on the whole point of why that particular planet was the one that mattered.

 

[horatio83]

2. I find it disturbing that some fans think that the property rights of a small village outweighs the welfare of billions, and that by throwing around the buzzword "imperialism," they can obfuscate that central part of the so-called "dilemma."

The settlers of the Americas or the colonizers of Africa probably said the same thing, what are a handful of savages compared to the well-being of millions of Europeans.
Picard asked Dougherty were he wants to draw the line. For us anti-imperialists the line is clear, never mess with another people. So tell us, where do you draw the line? Is it an absolute number or one relative to the population of the Federation? Where does your logic differ from Borg logic which perceives the assimilation of another lifeform into their collective as welfare-enhancing?

Your thinking is totalitarian, you elevate the potential medical benefits of some funky radiation upon the population of the Federation as supreme good in the galaxy. That is not how the liberal democratic Federation functions.

 

[EyalM]

The Baku threw out the Sona, why don't the Sona have a right to do the same to the Baku?

 

[horatio83]

Ehm, you know the Prime Directive, do you? It is not the job of the Federation to judge or even interfere into the internal matters of another culture. The Ba'ku could slaughter the Son'a or vice versa, it is none of our business.
Furthermore the Ba'ku exiled a bunch of people who wanted to explore the stars anyway. No idea how a bunch of peasants are supposed to be able to force the younger generation which has warp-capable spaceships off the planet. The older folks could not even have thrown the younger folks out of their villages if the latter had particle weapons. So it wasn't a matter of force but had more in common with parents telling their children to get lost. No physical harm done but the relationship is damaged.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

1. This is simply incorrect. There are many things to indicate this, including the fact that they DIDN'T SHARE WHAT THEY FOUND WITH ANYONE ELSE. And indeed, that there was no indication that they would ever consider doing so.

Who were they going to share it with? Nobody seemed particularly inclined to go into the Briar Patch.

It's not their planet. It wasn't colonized by the federation. The Ba'ku never joined the federation.

So how are the Ba'ku subject to the power of an organization that they are not and never were members of?

With regards to point 2, I'll just say that, as with the Maquis, I'd find it a lot more relevant if the movie wasn't set in a universe where relocating 600 people is a hell of a lot easier for all parties concerned than it would be, say, on Earth in the present.

IT'S. NOT. A. FEDERATION. PLANET.

The federation can't claim emanate domain on a sovereign planet. EMANATE DOMAIN DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

What is so hard to grasp about the fact that the Ba'ku aren't part of the federation?

I mean its not like Star Trek didn't go to the trouble of showing how planets become part of the federation or that if a sovereign planet says no the federation that they leave.

You're still caught up in the eminent domain analogy. It doesn't really matter whether they're technically a Federation planet at all.

So your supporting imperialism basically.

 

[Starfury]

The other glaring hole is that it's a big planet! The baku have one village, ON A WHOLE PLANET. Just bring sick people or people in need of the properties of the planet and stick them on the other side of the world, really.

Dougherty: "Besides, they don't want to live in the middle of the Briar Patch. Who would?"

Neither the Feds, nor the So'Na had the intention to bring people to the planet. They wanted to collect the metaphasic particles in the planets ring, which would have killed everyone and everything on the planet.

"I only know they inject something into the rings that starts a thermolytic reaction. When it's over, the planet will be uninhabitable for generations."

So, basically, they planned to destroy the whole ecosystem. You are still good with that?

 

[sonak]

Who were they going to share it with? Nobody seemed particularly inclined to go into the Briar Patch.

It's not their planet. It wasn't colonized by the federation. The Ba'ku never joined the federation.

So how are the Ba'ku subject to the power of an organization that they are not and never were members of?



IT'S. NOT. A. FEDERATION. PLANET.

The federation can't claim emanate domain on a sovereign planet. EMANATE DOMAIN DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

What is so hard to grasp about the fact that the Ba'ku aren't part of the federation?

I mean its not like Star Trek didn't go to the trouble of showing how planets become part of the federation or that if a sovereign planet says no the federation that they leave.

You're still caught up in the eminent domain analogy. It doesn't really matter whether they're technically a Federation planet at all.

So your supporting imperialism basically.

I'm supporting a pragmatic view of ethics that focuses on concrete good rather than a rigid adherence to abstract principles when that rigid adherence ends up doing more harm than good. I'm supporting the same view that Picard once argued for in episodes like "Justice" or "Journey's End."


If you want to call it "imperialism" because that sounds like a scary word to throw around, then call it that if you wish.