The Maquis - where do you stand?

[Anwar]

Bingo. Deriding the right to one's property as "infantile" is just another example of said mentality.

Not when it was never fully their property to begin with, nor were they willing to even consider moving (and in all the vastness of space, at that) with the full knowledge that their remaining there would just lead to more meaningless death. It's not like there's some land crisis going on. In this case, they are the infantile ones.

Like I said, the Anti-Government types simply taking every shot they can.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Property? What property? In a Federation with a near infinite amount of living space, the concept of "defending a home" loses much of its meaning.

If my government said that I could either move, or war would break out, damn right I would move! I have no right to cause bloodshed via my arrogance. And that is what the Maquis were really all about. They were self-styled wannabe revolutionaries who were only in it for the glory...just look at Eddington, he is a perfect example.

And let us just shut up about the Federation "kicking the colonists out". No one has been. As Dorvan V showed, THEY CHOSE TO STAY. All of them. (There is no evidence that any colony chose otherwise.)

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It was their home--of COURSE they weren't going to abandon it. And how does being in space change the concept that it was THEIR PROPERTY? Just because, say, you have an island in the middle of an ocean doesn't stop it from being claimable as someone's property or territory. Same deal in space. Again, they should not have to budge from their property.

And to all those claiming the Federation never had a claim on those worlds, I haven't seen a single person actually back up that claim with real evidence. The Cardassians may be claiming it's disputed, but if the Federation claimed it first, then too bad on the Cardassians. And the Cardassians just looking at it and saying, "I want it!" doesn't count as a legitimate claim. Any power could grab a star chart and randomly draw a line. If they brought it under their control first and the Federation took it from them by force, then the Cardassians would absolutely have a legitimate claim against the Federation for that. But if they just looked out at the stars and said, "I want it!" but never landed any expeditions or brought the system decisively under their control while it was uninhabited--well, too bad!

The "meaningless death" would never have occurred if the Federation hadn't agreed to a treaty that involved selling their people down the river. Different terms could easily have been arranged--uninhabited worlds could've been swapped, but forcing people to either move or fall under totalitarian rule knowing full well how the Cardassian government treats aliens and even its own people is an absolute no-no.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The federation's hypocrisy went well beyond putting the colonists' lands under cardassian influence.

The federation hunted the colonists like animals for terrorism, because they broke the federation-cardassian treaty in protecting themselvs against cardassians who were helped by their central command.

In doing so, the federation unambiguously confirmed the colonists were still federation citizens - only one's citizens have the obligation to respect one's treaties.
But citizens have not only obligations - they have also rights. The right to be protected when a foreign power tries to massacre them, for example.

The federation stood by and watched while the jem'hadar and the cardassians commited genocide, murdering hundreds of thousands of federation citizens.

The federation proved to be hypocritical, cowardly, to care nothing about the lives of its citizens.

And its only excuse - it asked the colonists to move and they refused.
Apparently, if you don't slavishly obey big brother, you are to be hunted down, killed or let to die - when it's politically expedient.
So much for freedom and the right to property.

After such events, any non-central federation world is more than justified in expecting the same treatement from the central federation government if it has the audacity to think it has the right to be free and disobey big brother.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I think Sisko summed it up pretty well in "The Maquis" two-parter. It was a bad treaty and hence the Federation is responsible for creating the Maquis in the first place. However, the Maquis' actions didn't really help solve any problems, instead it worsened the stiuation.

Had I hailed from one of the Federation colonies along the Cardassian border, it's entirely possible that I would have joined up with the Maquis. If you have a little more distance to the problems there (and maybe see the bigger picture), you'd stay in Starfleet though.

After the Central Command had been toppled in early 2372 I would have tried to re-negotiate the treaty. Even to the (new) Cardassian government it should have been obvious that the situation simply wasn't working. Why didn't the Federation try to do this? In "For the Cause", the Federation was giving industrial replicators to Cardassia for free. Why not give it to them in exchange for a further revision of the border lines?

 

[maneth]

My views on the Maquis are hard to define. I definitely don't like their methods, there's no excuse for using WMDs on a planet full of mainly innocent civilians. However, they were sold down the river by both the Federation and the Cardassian Central Command, so it's hard to say what else they could have done to be quite honest.

My guess is that the Maquis were just as attached to their home planets as, say, the Israelis are when they claim the right to build settlements on Palestinian territory, even if they don't have a holy book that says they have a right to live there (which counts for less than nothing with those whose holy book says something else).

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Assuming I didn't live on one of the planets in question, I would probably be a sympathizer, but not an active participant. However, if I was a resident of one of the planets and had to give up my home, I'd probably join them.

And by the way, a 'home' is a lot more than just the land..even less so the 'value' of that land. That is completely missing the point.

A 'home' is where your family is, your friends are. It is a place where you have built a community and strong emotional ties. It is the place where your favorite beach is....your favorite trail to hike. Your favorite stream to fish. It is a place where you feel a certain sense of contentment and belonging.

It is NOT just the 'value' of a physical building.

Shoot...I have owned two houses in in Georgia, where I have lived for 15 years. But neither of them have ever been 'home'. 'Home' is Alaska - the place I lived where I was happiest and where I still to this day have life-long friends. 15 years later, as I slog through the blazing heat and big city smog on my daily run, I think of a cool, clean running trail through the woods I spent so much time on in Anchorage. That running trail is 'home'. Those friends are 'home'. Doesn't matter in the slightest that my house I am living in right now is 4 times the size, easily, of the zero-lot line I owned in Alaska.

Anyone who thinks this is purely about the economics of home and land ownership (as a few earlier post suggests) is completely missing the point. Have you guys only lived in one place your entire lives or something? To not grasp the concept that 'home' is not a building and the land it sits on?

Come on!

 

[Kira Nerys]

Neutral no opinion either way

 

[neozeks]

It was their home--of COURSE they weren't going to abandon it. And how does being in space change the concept that it was THEIR PROPERTY? Just because, say, you have an island in the middle of an ocean doesn't stop it from being claimable as someone's property or territory. Same deal in space. Again, they should not have to budge from their property.

I know it's probably not completely the same situation, but what about eminent domain? Doesn't the state have the right to take away your property, with just compensation, in order to benefit the public good? If anything, the Federation was lenient with the colonists - legally, it probably had every right to forcibly remove them (I'm thinking here of Israel forcibly removing it's settlers from Gaza, for example).

 

[StarryEyed]

Sympathizer.

When the Federation made that treaty with the Cardassians, it was their lowest point since agreeing to the ridiculous terms of the Treaty of Algeron. The Marquis did the Federation a favor by giving them a wake-up call.

The Federation needs to stand behind its citizens or there is no point to the organization.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It was their home--of COURSE they weren't going to abandon it. And how does being in space change the concept that it was THEIR PROPERTY? Just because, say, you have an island in the middle of an ocean doesn't stop it from being claimable as someone's property or territory. Same deal in space. Again, they should not have to budge from their property.

I know it's probably not completely the same situation, but what about eminent domain? Doesn't the state have the right to take away your property, with just compensation, in order to benefit the public good? If anything, the Federation was lenient with the colonists - legally, it probably had every right to forcibly remove them (I'm thinking here of Israel forcibly removing it's settlers from Gaza, for example).

Eminent domain is something I believe to be greatly overused, and I would like to see the power curbed to strictly infrastructure. Which this treaty was NOT...it was strictly a political ploy, and one where I think if they had actually stood up to the Cardassians in negotiations, the Cardassians would not have forced them into that situation. The Cardassians smelled weakness and moved in because they realized they'd found an even more effective way than fighting to expand their territory. Why expend resources when all you have to do is a little sabre-rattling to just have worlds AND all their infrastructure and potential slaves dropped into your lap?

 

[StarryEyed]

...I think if they had actually stood up to the Cardassians in negotiations, the Cardassians would not have forced them into that situation. The Cardassians smelled weakness and moved in because they realized they'd found an even more effective way than fighting to expand their territory. Why expend resources when all you have to do is a little sabre-rattling to just have worlds AND all their infrastructure and potential slaves dropped into your lap?

That is what is so disgraceful about the whole thing. The militarily-superior Federation knuckled under to a second-rate power because they had lost their backbone to stand up for what was right.

Maybe Q's action in Q-Who wasn't specifically a wake-up call regarding the Borg; maybe it was a more general wake-up call for a society that had gone soft.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

And that also gets to why I am ticked off at the whole Essentialists thing. Apparently the only people WITHIN the Federation who actually speak up have to be terrorist wingnuts! You really find yourself wondering just how dissent from reasonable people was squashed, what kind of indoctrination was going on.

 

[Kai Winn]

i never caught up what bad things the cardassians were actually doing to that bunch of peasants which trespassed into their territory, like the indians who had found the promised land just a few years before the tng epsiode where wesley departed with the traveller. didn't the cardies leave them alone growing nobs, and on their journeys to spiritual self-discovery? seems to me they rebelled as a matter of principle against the change of central government 1,000 or so lightyears away.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And that also gets to why I am ticked off at the whole Essentialists thing. Apparently the only people WITHIN the Federation who actually speak up have to be terrorist wingnuts! You really find yourself wondering just how dissent from reasonable people was squashed, what kind of indoctrination was going on.

To speak up, there must logically be something to speak up ABOUT. And in a near utopia like the Federation, that will in itself be rare.

 

[sonak]

So it's a sign of "softness" to negotiate a reasonable compromise peace involving an exchange of a few colony planets rather than trying to bully the enemy into accepting harsher terms that may or may not lead to a continuation of conflict?

That kind of aggressive policy will probably lead to the Federation getting sapped of resources and manpower(no offense intended from the gendered language) before too long as they get dragged into unnecessary war after unnecessary war due to an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate.

So um, great strategy there.


The Essentialists were idiots who were sabotaging folks' vacations and offered no reasonable arguments. So... vacations lead to "softness?" Huh?

And if the UFP is so soft, how did it win against the Dominion and repeatedly against the Borg?


LHWIWS is one of the worst DS9 episodes.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

So it's a sign of "softness" to negotiate a reasonable compromise peace involving an exchange of a few colony planets rather than trying to bully the enemy into accepting harsher terms that may or may not lead to a continuation of conflict?

That kind of aggressive policy will probably lead to the Federation getting sapped of resources and manpower(no offense intended from the gendered language) before too long as they get dragged into unnecessary war after unnecessary war due to an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate.

So um, great strategy there.

If swapping inhabited planets was the only thing the Federation could think of, then they were quite uncreative. There are MANY other suggestions that would work, that are not necessarily "harsher" terms, but simply different. Anything from uninhabited planets to more favorable trade terms even to controlled information or technology swaps are available, or combinations of these.

The Essentialists were idiots who were sabotaging folks' vacations and offered no reasonable arguments. So... vacations lead to "softness?" Huh?

And I agree that they were idiots. The problem is that we were never given any LEGITIMATE dissenters--that is to say, people who were not involved in violent acts as a result of their dissent. The closest thing we got to that was Wesley Crusher's nonviolent resignation, but we never got any other examples. I would've liked to see the Federation populace SERIOUSLY divided over that issue, rather than it being only a "fringe" element.

And if the UFP is so soft, how did it win against the Dominion and repeatedly against the Borg?

By the skin of their teeth. Against the Borg I'm not sure things could've been done differently, but against the Dominion I think many mistakes were made by a naive Federation that cost lives, both in terms of policy and how they treated their troops. (And even their whole conception of what Starfleet was.)

And personally, I actually think they would've fared better if they stopped the Dominion convoys and mined the wormhole entrance right away. Yes, they would end up at war with Cardassia, but a war with Cardassia would've come at lesser cost and whenever the Dominion finally got through the minefield, there would be just ONE bottleneck where efforts could be focused, instead of having a base in the AQ.

The trick would've been Bajor, of course, but I would've put much stronger political pressure on them to allow the blocking of the wormhole. In fact, I would even have staged a political "condemnation" from Bajor--encourage them behind the scenes to make a statement condemning the Federation blockade in their territory so as to keep from being an immediate target from Cardassian and Dominion forces, but to also not oppose the blockade. (I would also involve no Bajoran personnel in such aggressive actions, so that they could wash their hands of it as far as external appearances go.) I would not ever advocate any consequences to not going along with the plan that would hurt Bajor--political backlash and bad press would be sufficient, I think, since the Bajorans are NOT enemies and should not be treated like it.

LHWIWS is one of the worst DS9 episodes.

On that we agree.

 

[sonak]

I do think they struggle when they try to show opposition groups within the Federation. The Essentialists were kind of idiots and despite what some folks on this thread seem to think, I don't think the Maquis were given good enough motivation. I guess since it's Star Trek, the opposition groups have to be discredited extremists to keep the UFP looking good.

It would be cool to see a real opposition to Federation policy regarding say, the Prime Directive. Or imagine if there was an opposition "peace camp" within the Federation during the Dominion War arguing for unconditional negotiations with the Dominion for a settlement. (Sort of like that episode with the "Jack Pack" but taken a little more seriously).

 

[darkwing_duck1]

They are terrorists. Enemies to peace.

I might add that they willingly remained in the DMZ with full knowledge they would be under Cardassian rule. They could have moved - in the Federation there should be hundreds of suitable worlds. They stay, they reap the consequences.

The opposite of peace is war. The actions of the Maquis risked war with Cardassia (though with their racial hatred of Cardassians, that may have been what the Maquis wanted anyway). The peace treaty must be maintained; the colonists can move, the treaty cannot. There are larger concerns at work here.

The question is: did the Federation have the RIGHT to cede those worlds against their occupants' wishes?

Using the real world as an example: if for some reason a government came to power in the US that offered to cede Texas back to Mexico, wouldn't the Texans have every right to say "Oh HELL no you don't!"

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Eminent domain is something I believe to be greatly overused, and I would like to see the power curbed to strictly infrastructure. Which this treaty was NOT...it was strictly a political ploy

I think you're on to something here. ED would be taking the colonies to build a strategically important Starbase/Shipyard/supply depot/whatever, and within the Federation's power.

Taking the colonies to swap to the Cardassians is akin to the modern wave of "Emminent Domain" takings that serve primarily to enrich powerful land interests who buy off the elected officials with promises of more tax monies, and an ILlegitimate use of the Federation's power.