The Maquis were never plausible or likeable

[Cyke101]

We've seen the Earth get threatened every other year on every Trek show save for Voyager (and even then, Species 8472 had Earth in their crosshairs). In some of those instances, there was enough advance warning to evacuate the planet. But there's no mention of leaving the Earth whatsoever, no matter the threat.

I bring that up because, frankly, those planets are to the Maquis what Earth is to the rest of humanity. No one would dare budge to give up their homes. If the roles were switched and Earth was on about to be traded to a foreign power, lots and lots of people would fight.

Now, that's not to defend the Maquis. Staying on their lands and resisting a diaspora is one thing, but resorting to guerilla warfare and terrorism when not all options were yet exhausted was what turned them unlikable.

 

[JustKate]

I almost have 24th century mentality right now. I look at my car as a simple tool, and am less and less materialistic every day. My biggest joys are using the public commons

I don't value my computer as an object but rather as a means to knowledge. I just can't believe that people would love land so much as to resort to terrorism.

I don't think it's nearly as simple as "materialism." We're not talking about leaving a PC or a car - or even a house. We're talking about being forced to leave your "home," and home is more than the building or the street or the city or the...

It's easy to say, "Oh, it wouldn't bother me." But if you've never been forced to leave home, how do you know how you'd feel?

I haven't either. I'm just guessing, based on history, that when it comes to defending "home," however that's defined, many people will fight - not merely to save their stuff, but to save their "home."

I am from California, even though I haven't lived there in years - I grew up in a town only about 40 miles from the infamous San Andreas fault and even closer to a whole lot of other lesser-known faults. There are lots of earthquakes there, of course. If I heard that a town in, say, Mexico had been badly damaged by an earthquake, I would feel sorry. If I heard that a town in California, even if I didn't know anybody there, had been badly damaged by an earthquake, I would feel...really sorry - anxious, even. Because it's closer to "home." And if an earthquake badly damaged my hometown, even if the family and close friends I have remaining there came through fine, it would actually hurt. It didn't cause me to lose any of my stuff, nor did it hurt people I love, but it would cause me pain. Because it happened at "home."

If that would hurt - and it would, it would hurt horribly - why wouldn't it hurt to be forced to leave your home for political reasons, however valid those reasons might be? And if it hurts, some people will hurt back. I don't think a few hundred years will be enough to change that. I could be wrong, of course.

Edit: Oh, and good point Cyke. I thought about bringing that up, too, but couldn't think of how to put it. You did it better than I would have, though.

 

[RyuRoots]

I just can't believe that people would love land so much as to resort to terrorism.

Then you are really missing the point here. These are colonies where these people have made lives for themselves, many of them having personally harvested the land for crops and such things. It's not "land" to these people. In their eyes, it's the only home they have, and it was sold to an antagonistic power without any notice or consent.

 

[Mycobac]

There are several points that I would like to make. Firstly, I don’t think that land in the Star Trek universe is as readily available as many people assume it is. If every other planet was an uninhabited Class M world fully capable of supporting a large population and extensive cultivation then why was there such a big deal made about Sherman’s Planet and other disputed planets in TOS. Keep in mind that we don’t know what the main industry in the majority of the “colonies” which we see is. Many are scientific colonies, and the planets which they inhabit may hold interesting scientific curiosities or propitious research environments but might not lend themselves to large scale habitation. Additionally, many of the remaining colonies are likely devoted to mining or industrial endeavors and might not be suitable for cultivation. For example, the Russian steppes have plenty of free land but they are for the most part nor suitable for habitation or cultivation and so for the most part have remained uninhabited except by nomadic horsemen. If fully cultivable Class M planets were really as abundant as many assume then the people of the 24th century Milky Way Galaxy must be exceptionably war-like (the Federation included) for why fight over a planet when one can simply move over a few star systems and find one which is just as good if not better.

Regardless of whether Class M planets are as abundant as assumed by some or not, the point that this is these people’s home is a very pertinent one. Some have expressed lack of understanding at how people could be so attached to land as to resort to armed resistance to keep it, but bear in mind that it is not just the person’s house and land but their community which is being threatened. A home is not just your house and property but your friends down the street, your neighbors for your whole life, the café where you proposed to your wife, etc…They are being asked to give all this up and uproot and go somewhere else. Even if a planet could be found which was identical to that being evacuated and a colony could be constructed which exactly matched the one left behind the odds are that many people would choose not to relocate there, if nothing else on the basis that if they had been forced to move once they might be made to move again. By this logic there really was no injustice done to the Native Americans by the European settlers, after all they were being given other land in exchange for what was being taken so what is the big problem? Wouldn’t it have been logical to just move to avoid conflict?

As to the likeability of the Maquis themselves I must agree that they were somewhat unsympathetic. I firmly believe that there is a very significant difference between armed “guerilla” type resistance, which in some cases is not just justifiable but admirable, and terrorism (specific targeting of civilians) which is for the most part indefensible. The Maquis clearly crossed the line targeting the civilian (purportedly) Bok’Nor as well as utilizing chemical/biological attacks against the Cardassian civilians on Veloz Prime and Quatal Prime. I think that the problem with the Maquis was in their methods not in their goals.

Finally, as to the feasibility of Starfleet Officers defecting “en masse” to join the Maquis. I hardly think that the limited number of defectors we saw constitutes a significant percentage of Starfleet manpower. Especially considering the fact that Starfleet probably contains at the very least several million officers and enlisted personnel. The fact that a relatively high percentage of the characters with which we are familiar with had some ties to the Maquis should not be taken to mean that there was some massive defection like what happened during the American Civil War. It just means that the creators thought that these characters would be more interesting if given a conflicted back story.

P.S. JustKate I am also from California (actually ON the San Andreas Fault) and I am currently in the process of moving to Indiana. Any suggestions, warnings, advice, attractions, etc… that I should keep in mind when I get there?

 

[Praetor]

I also think the Maquis were understandable, and even sympathetic. Two words: imminent domain. The U.S. government may seize any piece of private property that they see fit for the common good, typically to build roads or other such things. People are normally compensated for it, but often resisted anyway until the government condemned their property. (My father worked for the Department of Transportation and often had to deal with these people, and often expressed his gratitude to never be on the other side of the argument.)

I see the Maquis situation as almost the reverse - the Cardassians claimed these planets, and to make peace the Federation had to relinquish their claims with little consideration for the people who lived there. This is TOTALLY an issue of self-determination to me, and the members of the Maquis feeling like they had been deprived of their right to self-determination, and many people with no personal interest who either sympathized with their Noble Cause (tm) or malcontents who were eager to pick up a gun for a fight. I imagine the Maquis almost acted as a magnet for the Federation's detractors. Who would want to leave paradise, after all?

Likable? As individuals, some of them were. I liked Chakotay. I liked B'Elanna. I liked Tom. But then again, we didn't see them really do anything other than harass poor Gul Evek. But they were terrorists, technically, especially since history is written by the victors.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

I think they were plausible. But I never found any of them likeable.

Interesting, maybe. Likeable, no.