No. Officers in the military discuss leadership quite extensively. It is not a word reserved for the president or monarch. It is a quality cultivated in order to get men and women to perform collectively and above their abilities.Leadership now if he was just another general or what not wouldn't you think he would say something different.
Given what we saw earlier of the Maquis they didn't have a centralized presidency or general staff. Perhaps a council or something similar.No. Officers in the military discuss leadership quite extensively. It is not a word reserved for the president or monarch. It is a quality cultivated in order to get men and women to perform collectively and above their abilities.
The novel The Never Ending sacrifice explores this concept. Its a great read.With this Eddington changed the Maquis from fighting for their homes to an expanionist rogue group. The Federation gets slammed for wanting to relocate those in the DMZ, but Eddington is forcing the relocation of whole civilian population under the threat of death. Eddington perverted the cause and made them no better than the Cardassians he so "hated".
Make me wonder if in the post-Dominion War era if the Federation does take the DMZ (I'd assume they would) that if they wouldn't find examples of atrocities commited under the guidance of Eddington.
radical
ˈradɪk(ə)l/
noun
noun: radical; plural noun: radicals
1.
a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims.
synonyms: revolutionary, progressive, reformer, revisionist; More
No near the end of the story, it deals with the concept of how human colonists behaved towards their Cardessian neighbours. Eddington is not in it. Lets just say the humans revert to their wonderful 21st century forebears. No peace and love in the DMZ, even after the war.I looked at the summary it didn't seem to deal with Eddington being a monster or something.
I'd love a book series alternate timeline where the Maquis triumphed and you see heroic maquis fighting against, diplomatically haggling with and dealing with the other powers.
Good character, great arch. "For The Cause" was a surprise. ""For The Uniform" was awesome. And he died a good death.I will be discussing spoilers on the Eddington story arc, but I assume it is fair given a twenty year old show. I thought of this because of this quote, and fridge logic thought on it:
"You'd be surprised. People don't enter Starfleet to become commanders. Or admirals, for that matter. It's the captain's chair everyone has their eye on. That's what I wanted when I joined up, but you don't get to be a captain wearing a gold uniform."
And that was the seed of his character arc. However, Sisko started out in engineering, was made first officer and put in the command division by Leyton on the USS Okinawa, and he became commander/captain of Deep Space Nine. Michael Eddington is a rather complicated character. He started off as the loyal Starfleet officer, before becoming a Maquis. Eddington thought of himself as a romantic hero, and of the Federation as something insidious. Sisko thought of him as having betrayed his oath and betraying the principles and people he had dedicated himself to, as well as Sisko himself. And he saw Sisko as his great adversary. Eddington died in a way a romantic hero would, fighting a lost cause to allow his friends and family and even his enemy to make it out alive. So what are your opinions on the character of Michael Eddington?
What more could you ask than a glorious death?
Viva la Eddigton and viva la Maquis!
I'm half tempted to raise cane until your banned.Go tell your friends in ISIS how much you love a "glorious death". I'm sure they'd be more than happy to provide you with one.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.