PD breaking individuals, SoD spoilers...
- Thread starter captcalhoun
- Start date
^ Actually, you are.
The Prime Directive forbids the Federation from interfering in purely local matters within any culture. The Klingon Civil War, for example. Also the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. All those were warp capable societies, yet the PD still applied to them.
The Prime Directive forbids the Federation from interfering in purely local matters within any culture. The Klingon Civil War, for example. Also the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. All those were warp capable societies, yet the PD still applied to them.
Bull and shit, sir. All of the violence that we saw in Bajoran society post-Occupation would have occured in one way or another, in one form or another, had there been a homegrown Emissary, because that violence represented pre-existing intra-Bajoran conflicts.
Question:
It is a fact that the Prophets exist. It is a fact that the Prophets acknowledged Sisko as their Emissary. It is a fact that the Bajorans knew an Emissary was coming. It is a fact that the Bajorans identified Sisko as their Emissary.
Given all that -- wouldn't it actually be Bajor that's interfering with the Federation's culture, not the other way around?
^ Didn't TNG's "Pen Pals" point out that a distress call automatically takes precedence over Prime Directive considerations as well? Meaning, even a pre-warp society can be contacted if it puts out such a call.
Also, of course the Omega Directive overrides the PD at all times as well.
Also, of course the Omega Directive overrides the PD at all times as well.
And I think it's less than useless to apply such an oversimplified, inflexible standard to something as complex as cross-cultural interaction, where every case brings unique demands and problems.
Which is neither in dispute nor relevant, as I've already said. We're talking past each other now -- all you're doing is reiterating what you've already said, as if you didn't even hear my counterarguments.
And you continue to prove that you haven't heard a word I've said. You're still making the condescending assumption that a culture is some fragile house of cards that collapses under the slightest external impetus, ignoring the fact that it has its own dynamism, its own agendas, its own strength and adaptability that resist and moderate any external change. It is an antiquated and demeaning assumption that modern historiographers have spent a generation or more combating. I've tried to explain to you why that is, but you don't seem to want to listen. So there's nothing more I can say.
I have also been following this discussion with interest, and I'd like to throw out a hypothetical for those who fall on the interventionist side of the equation. Say you're a starship captain, coming across an inhabitated planet of roughly antiquity- or medieval-level development. They have no way of knowing you're there. Sensors detect that geological upheaval is about to destroy one of the major continents; your science officer tells you they can avoid the cataclysm by drilling some holes in the crust out in the ocean, relieving the pressure. Do you do so, and save the people on that continent? Now, what if sensor observations show that the dominant civilization of this continent is a brutal hegemon which has enslaved many other socities and looks likely to continue its expansion in that vein, as no others have the technology or organization to resist? Save it anyways and become complicit in the continued existence and expansion of the hegemon, or let natural disasters influence the rise and fall of civilizations on this world as they would without intervention? If you don't save the continent, would your answer have been different if the continent was populated by peaceable agrarians or hunter/gatherers? Do we have the right to direct the course of alien civilizations based on our values, particularly worlds that have not yet developed any system of ethics we would recognize as such--where the people are making due as best they know how?
Fictititiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictititiously yours, Trent Roman
My general rule is that when you have the capacity to save people from large-scale natural disasters, you have an obligation to do so, and that the nature of the foreign relations of the society being saved is irrelevant, because A) most of the victims would still be innocent people who are not involved in sentient rights abuses, and B) societies have the right to determine for themselves what kind of society they shall be, and C) societies have the right to exist.
I hear the counter arguments. I don't find them stirring. I'm not required to agree and I don't. Further, I don't think it's either paternalistic or infantilizing to assume trouble when we have plenty of real world examples on Earth of precisely the problem I've described.
Sisko wasn't some guy who set up a little Creole restaurant in some Bajoran town. That's Quark.
Sisko was the Emissary- a fantastically significant and culturally volatile position to be occupied by someone not of that culture. From my side of the divide that's one big rock dumped in the lake, regardless of who did the dumping. To me that says PD breach. There's nothing that says the breach has to have negative effect, only that it must divert the natural flow. I say Sisko does that. You disagree. Great.
You find these things to be natural parts of cultural evolution. I do not. I find them at best troublesome and, often, things to be avoided if possible.
Yes, there's a line. And each situation determines where you place it. That's why I wrote the debate into the story and several characters wrestling with the PD in their minds. A different captain might interpret the rules differently, only to be courtmarshalled upon return to the dock.
And, again, Sisko's CREATORS considered his activities to be "close to the line" at the very least. We call that solid ground where I come from.
But the good news is all that has to happen now is some subsequent writer can simply put in a single line that states, unequivocally, that what he did was NOT a PD violation, even in spirit, and that will be the official policy. You can do it yourself. And it will stand until a really good story can be told saying it was a violation after all and then that will be the official policy.
And on and on.
Sisko wasn't some guy who set up a little Creole restaurant in some Bajoran town. That's Quark.
Sisko was the Emissary- a fantastically significant and culturally volatile position to be occupied by someone not of that culture. From my side of the divide that's one big rock dumped in the lake, regardless of who did the dumping. To me that says PD breach. There's nothing that says the breach has to have negative effect, only that it must divert the natural flow. I say Sisko does that. You disagree. Great.
You find these things to be natural parts of cultural evolution. I do not. I find them at best troublesome and, often, things to be avoided if possible.
Yes, there's a line. And each situation determines where you place it. That's why I wrote the debate into the story and several characters wrestling with the PD in their minds. A different captain might interpret the rules differently, only to be courtmarshalled upon return to the dock.
And, again, Sisko's CREATORS considered his activities to be "close to the line" at the very least. We call that solid ground where I come from.
But the good news is all that has to happen now is some subsequent writer can simply put in a single line that states, unequivocally, that what he did was NOT a PD violation, even in spirit, and that will be the official policy. You can do it yourself. And it will stand until a really good story can be told saying it was a violation after all and then that will be the official policy.
And on and on.
We're not discussing Bajoran rules. They have no PD. It doesn't matter what they ask for or even what many of them accept. It only matters what the PD is meant to prevent and whether or not it does so in a given situation or whether violating it is allowed.
Having read the arguments for both sides, I can see where you are both coming from but there is one thing that hasn't really been taken into account, at least not directly. The Prophets are considered, by Bajorans, to be "of Bajor" and they are not gods, merely teachers. Sisko's mother was a Prophet and he is her offspring, thereby making him partly "of Bajor" himself, so therefore Sisko is not an outsider.
Kira was one of the greatest opponents of the Federation being involved in Bajoran affairs and diasgreed with the policies of her own government. However, she grew to trust Sisko as a member of the Federation and later as the Emissary because of her faith in the Prophets.
Kira was one of the greatest opponents of the Federation being involved in Bajoran affairs and diasgreed with the policies of her own government. However, she grew to trust Sisko as a member of the Federation and later as the Emissary because of her faith in the Prophets.
I'm not particularly keen on taking sides on the details of this discussion, as I also see several valid points for each and every camp. One thing that gets surprisingly little mention in these debates, though: save for one possible exception (Captain Merrick in TOS "Bread and Circuses"), the Prime Directive has only ever hindered or otherwise affected our Starfleet heroes.
Indeed, we get a pretty explicit claim that civilians need not obey the PD in TNG "Angel One". This as such invalidates the effectiveness of the PD in fighting cultural contamination. So perhaps we should be tackling the issue from the opposite end?
That is, perhaps the PD is not meant to protect innocent cultures. Perhaps the primary or indeed sole purpose of the PD is to put a choke collar on Starfleet, so that it doesn't evolve into a military dictatorship that bullies the entire galaxy into submission.
The nice wording about protecting the noble savages and guaranteeing the self-determination of peaceful cultures would be there just for effect. The practical consequence of the Directive as portrayed would be far more straightforward: no Starfleet officer can take an active role in politics of any sort, be they interior or exterior, without falling under intense scrutiny and facing the end of his or her career.
That's a very functional definition of "natural development" right there, not being coerced by an armed outside force. Civilians can meddle all they want, bringing in influences that may be beneficial or destructive - but they will never be as destructive as orbital bombardment from a well-intentioned starship or three.
There is no harm done in making the PD overtly, indeed dysfuctionally strict and restrictive, then: it only hampers the military personnel, a tiny majority of what the UFP is and represents. Erring on the side of caution will seldom have negative effects (although situations like "Homeward" exemplify those), but giving even a little leeway for "good intentions" would risk the aforementioned military intervention and ultimately the dictatorship.
The Federation Council can and will act in opposition to the PD when it so wishes - we actually saw this happen in ST:INS. While the Directive nominally is the Federation policy, the Federation is entitled to interpret its own policy as it pleases. But the military must never be allowed to interpret Federation policy, as the military is not the Federation.
Timo Saloniemi
Indeed, we get a pretty explicit claim that civilians need not obey the PD in TNG "Angel One". This as such invalidates the effectiveness of the PD in fighting cultural contamination. So perhaps we should be tackling the issue from the opposite end?
That is, perhaps the PD is not meant to protect innocent cultures. Perhaps the primary or indeed sole purpose of the PD is to put a choke collar on Starfleet, so that it doesn't evolve into a military dictatorship that bullies the entire galaxy into submission.
The nice wording about protecting the noble savages and guaranteeing the self-determination of peaceful cultures would be there just for effect. The practical consequence of the Directive as portrayed would be far more straightforward: no Starfleet officer can take an active role in politics of any sort, be they interior or exterior, without falling under intense scrutiny and facing the end of his or her career.
That's a very functional definition of "natural development" right there, not being coerced by an armed outside force. Civilians can meddle all they want, bringing in influences that may be beneficial or destructive - but they will never be as destructive as orbital bombardment from a well-intentioned starship or three.
There is no harm done in making the PD overtly, indeed dysfuctionally strict and restrictive, then: it only hampers the military personnel, a tiny majority of what the UFP is and represents. Erring on the side of caution will seldom have negative effects (although situations like "Homeward" exemplify those), but giving even a little leeway for "good intentions" would risk the aforementioned military intervention and ultimately the dictatorship.
The Federation Council can and will act in opposition to the PD when it so wishes - we actually saw this happen in ST:INS. While the Directive nominally is the Federation policy, the Federation is entitled to interpret its own policy as it pleases. But the military must never be allowed to interpret Federation policy, as the military is not the Federation.
Timo Saloniemi
I'm still not convinced that the Prime Directive applies at all to the Bajorans.
This is a culture that was travelling the stars before humanity started recording its own history. No doubt it was part of a local stellar community at that time, trading and communicating with many non-Bajoran cultures, (after all in DS9, they talk about re-establishing colonies, trade and exploration).
Then the Cardassians come, and steam roller the Bajoran society into rubble. Leaving a previously vibrant society on the brink of extinction surely makes an PD consideration moot. Regardless, the Bajorans specifically asked for Federation help and eventual membership, and the Federation agreed. Prior to this, Bajoran refugees were serving in Starfleet during the occupation, Ro Laren, Sito Jaxa.
The Bajorans asked for interference, practically demanded that the Federation meddle. Why apply the Prime Directive to the methodology of that meddling? Sisko never chose the role as the emissary, it was thrust upon him, first by Kai Opaka, and then by the Prophets themselves.
If anything the Federation have a case against the Bajorans for suborning their officer.
It's no surprise really, the Prime Directive writers' crutch was applied with increasing levels of inconsistency post TOS, where it was a pretty simple, don't meddle with pre-warp primitives and pretend to be God. I stopped taking the PD seriously in televised Trek when Federation members started invoking the Prime Directive. I guess there is precedent though, with California signing up to Kyoto and telling the Bush administration to stick it!
This is a culture that was travelling the stars before humanity started recording its own history. No doubt it was part of a local stellar community at that time, trading and communicating with many non-Bajoran cultures, (after all in DS9, they talk about re-establishing colonies, trade and exploration).
Then the Cardassians come, and steam roller the Bajoran society into rubble. Leaving a previously vibrant society on the brink of extinction surely makes an PD consideration moot. Regardless, the Bajorans specifically asked for Federation help and eventual membership, and the Federation agreed. Prior to this, Bajoran refugees were serving in Starfleet during the occupation, Ro Laren, Sito Jaxa.
The Bajorans asked for interference, practically demanded that the Federation meddle. Why apply the Prime Directive to the methodology of that meddling? Sisko never chose the role as the emissary, it was thrust upon him, first by Kai Opaka, and then by the Prophets themselves.
If anything the Federation have a case against the Bajorans for suborning their officer.
It's no surprise really, the Prime Directive writers' crutch was applied with increasing levels of inconsistency post TOS, where it was a pretty simple, don't meddle with pre-warp primitives and pretend to be God. I stopped taking the PD seriously in televised Trek when Federation members started invoking the Prime Directive. I guess there is precedent though, with California signing up to Kyoto and telling the Bush administration to stick it!
Yeah. Sweet. Works for me.
A thoroughly valid point! The DS9 episode "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" does contain a line that establishes that interference in the internal affairs of a foreign power is prohibited by the Federation Charter, which seems to make that the equivalent to the PD in civilian law -- but, as you noted above, that particular clause would have to have a specific interpretation, and the interpretation could easily be more liberal than Bashir implies in "Inter."
A fascinating interpretation. It would allow something like, say, free trade between cultures, which I think history shows is generally one of the healthiest ways for societies to interact (assuming exchange of diseases is not a factor) -- because it's mutually consensual. Each side takes only what it wants and needs from the other; and once it's obtained those items, it owns them and can use them however it wishes, even if they served a different function in the other culture. They're incorporated into the existing culture rather than disrupting it, and if they do bring about a change, it's a change that progresses from the culture's own needs and initiative.
Which is a pretty good metaphor for the healthy exchange of ideas between civilizations. The disruption tends to be minimized if each culture is free to use, repurpose, or reject whatever the other culture offers, whether technology or ideas, in keeping with its own needs and values.
And a trade relationship between civilians is certainly more likely to proceed that way than a process of military intervention, even a theoretically benign military/exploratory body such as Starfleet. When you bring in even the suggestion of military coercion, it can create a power imbalance that's more likely to cause problems, to make Culture B afraid of what might happen to them if they don't play along with Culture A's expectations.
It gets a bit trickier when you bring in something like religious missionaries or cultural activists, like the Odin crewmembers who were trying to fight the subjugation of males on Angel One. A new religion can certainly have an effect on a culture's development. But again, cultures generally adapt new religions to fit their own existing models, producing a syncretic blend (for example, Haitian religion identifying Catholic saints with traditional West African deities), so it tends to be a smoother and more gradual process than one might expect. And there have certainly been cases where missionaries have been unable to make much headway at all into an indigenous culture. (Like the failure of the Jesuits to get very far spreading the faith in China -- though that was largely because the Vatican took an imperious hardline policy that offended the Chinese emperor, in contrast to the Jesuits' own more adaptive, syncretic approach which was doing pretty well until then.) Once again, so long as there's no military coercion involved, an indigenous culture has a lot of choice in how it's affected by a contact.
So yeah, this is a very interesting idea, Timo. I've always found it odd that "Angel One" claimed the PD wasn't binding on civilians, because it seemed useless in those terms. But you've offered a rather clever explanation for why it might be designed to be limited in its applications.
The problem, though, is that it makes our Starfleet characters seem either hypocritical or clueless when they talk about the PD as though it were about protecting cultures from any and all interference. Though on the other hand, we don't see a lot of commerce or religion in the Federation, so maybe those kinds of interaction don't happen much. Maybe most UFP civilians are content to let Starfleet do the work of exploring and contacting and so forth, while they just indulge in lives of luxury and leisure.
I don't know that I agree. The PD has always been identified as a Starfleet General Order, and the general orders always struck me as regulations designed to control Starfleet officers' behavior when they are out of range of the direct control of Starfleet Command and the Federation government. Given that, I think it makes a lot of sense to regard the PD as being there to regulate Starfleet at times when it is away from central command.
