What if one day your neighbor wishes to cut down your tree, and use the lumber for his own purposes.
No longer deep space, renaming DS9
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
I got it...
Hotel California.
"Such a lovely place..."
Hotel California.
"Such a lovely place..."
That's an interesting case except that it's irrelevant to the situation discussed, IE "Insurrection"
I got it...
Hotel California.
"Such a lovely place..."
Well, except when it's occupied by the dominion...
What Our Heroes really should have done is figured out a way to harvest the rings without making the planet uninhabitable, and then scooped them up with the Baku none the wiser...at least in the short-term...
Of course, it wasn't their planet to begin with; they were just lucky enough to find the Fountain of Youth first.
Of course, it wasn't their planet to begin with; they were just lucky enough to find the Fountain of Youth first.
Sure it does. The Sona were trying to cut down the Bakku's apple tree
The Sona were hired by the Federation. The Baku don't own the apple tree, the Federation does.
No one in the movie ever proved the planet didn't belong to the Baku and the particles were a fountain of youth and healer of birth defects. They didn't fix phaser burns and stab wounds.
The Sona weren't hirelings, they were manipulators. And the Baku claim to the planet was literally older than the Federation itself. Also, obviously particles in planetary orbit fall under planetary claims, in exactly the same way every (non-land-locked) nation on Earth has the right to its own territorial waters.
It wasn't the Baku's world, to begin with, and they were occupying only a minuscule portion of the planet. It would be like me claiming possession of Japan!!! At the very least in order to claim possession of the planet, they should at least occupy a significant portion of its surface. For all, we know there could be people on the other side of the world that the Baku have never met!! Anyway, even if they owned the entire planet that wouldn't give them ownership of everything above, which is a little absurd as they could claim the entire universe that way. Plus the particles are hardly in orbit of the planet, as I understand it they occupy the entire solar system, which clearly belongs to the Federation. Of course, the ST writers have generally no idea of how space distances work so they sometimes make the stupidest of assumptions.
By that standard, the Federation has no right to claim half the colony worlds we've seen. It's clearly not required for a planet to have millions of inhabitants, nor for the inhabitants to be indigenous. They were still living there in their own thriving colony there since before the Federation existed.
In fact, the typical standard shown in Star Trek would tend to argue that unless a system has multiple races living in it vying for control, then the system inhabitants do have the right to claim the entire system. Because they're the only ones there.
But that question doesn't really even matter, because even in the unlikely event that the Federation's claim to the system would actually stand up in court, it wouldn't change the fact that the Federation's activities were going to *make the Baku's entire planet uninhabitable*. And the Federation way to deal with this was to *kidnap the Baku and forcibly relocate them*. That's not 'cutting down the Federation's apple tree', it's lighting the tree on fire and chucking the entire thing through the Baku's front window, then forcing them all to live on the street.
Hey how did Star Trek: Insurrection makes it way into a DS9 thread?
Prophet's Doorstep.
I haven't the foggiest...
That's irrelevant. The Baku themselves state that they found the planet, so it didn't originally belong to them.
That's just the effects we saw. Obviously the Federation felt that the planet's effects could do more than that or they wouldn't have been so adamant in trying to take it.
But it did belong to them as soon as they moved in and definitely by the time of Insurrection.
True.
Last edited:
Do you think if Humanity had colonized Proxima Centauri B 300 years in the past and an alien race claimed it wasn't really ours because we didn't evolve there, that we'd just accept that and leave? Or would we see it as ours because we already lived there for 300 years?
99.99 Percent of the planet was still unoccupied. With your kind of reasoning. The first ship of people in America could have claimed to own the entire continent. I'll say you can't claim total ownership of a planet if you don't have at least a billion of your people on it, spread over the entire habitable part of the planet. Planets are BIG!!!
Besides America was already occupied by much more than a few hundred Native Americans when it was "discovered" by the Europeans with your logic the Natives could demand restitution of what was stolen from them. Either that or the Baku don't own the planet. So which is it?
So if Aliens landed on Earth in 1700, humanity would have no right to object to them doing whatever they wanted here?
And defending the theft of Native American land as perfectly acceptable isn't exactly a good look. Reparations may not exactly be feasible financially and that's without even mentioning the questionable morality of holding today's generation responsible for choices made by people who lived hundreds of years ago, but none of that makes the European colonial land grabs morally acceptable.
Similar threads
