The way The Federation was portrayed in DS9
- Thread starter John200
- Start date
Anwar, I've been reading your posts for a while.
And I must say: You strike me either as very young or very naive. Possibly both.
That being the case, let me lay out a few things:
Even the biggest starship crewed by the UFP would be a fundamentally people-filled vessel.
The Ent-D has something like 1000 crew. That doesn't count family, doesn't count any civilians on board. Just the base-size crew.
Have you never been cooped up with other people for an extended period of time? Never had to live with, say, siblings in your room?
In case you haven't, somehow, I'll make it very clear: No matter how well-trained you are, personality conflicts develop. Put people in close quarters and weird things happen.
Put people in close quarters over an extended period of time, even a few months, and even the most well-adjusted people go a bit bonkers.
Put them in danger or under stress besides those stresses (and space is, face it, naturally pretty dangerous), and "no conflicts between the crew" becomes not an optimistic vision of a future society but a sick, demented delusion.
It doesn't just make for bad TV, it's pathologically delusional.
And I must say: You strike me either as very young or very naive. Possibly both.
That being the case, let me lay out a few things:
Even the biggest starship crewed by the UFP would be a fundamentally people-filled vessel.
The Ent-D has something like 1000 crew. That doesn't count family, doesn't count any civilians on board. Just the base-size crew.
Have you never been cooped up with other people for an extended period of time? Never had to live with, say, siblings in your room?
In case you haven't, somehow, I'll make it very clear: No matter how well-trained you are, personality conflicts develop. Put people in close quarters and weird things happen.
Put people in close quarters over an extended period of time, even a few months, and even the most well-adjusted people go a bit bonkers.
Put them in danger or under stress besides those stresses (and space is, face it, naturally pretty dangerous), and "no conflicts between the crew" becomes not an optimistic vision of a future society but a sick, demented delusion.
It doesn't just make for bad TV, it's pathologically delusional.
The TNG had a tendency of being a little harsh on modern humans, like making negative comments about how violent we were,social customs (primitive) and even clothing and uniforms.
They also frequently stated that they "evolved" out of things like greed, selfishness, bigotry, etc.,
Leaving us to wonder if they meant literally, biologically evolved so their brains don't just don't react that anymore?
Or are they saying that humans learned from their mistakes, and used technology to solve their problems.
The dialog seems to strongly imply that it is biological.
Still, given a choice, I would choose this future in a split second.
They also frequently stated that they "evolved" out of things like greed, selfishness, bigotry, etc.,
Leaving us to wonder if they meant literally, biologically evolved so their brains don't just don't react that anymore?
Or are they saying that humans learned from their mistakes, and used technology to solve their problems.
The dialog seems to strongly imply that it is biological.
Still, given a choice, I would choose this future in a split second.
And I'm sure you have a link to prove that he made that statement.
Oh and BTW, ENT human characters do act like 20th century people, IMO.
But they obviously haven't evolved out of arrogance.
Look at "The Neutral Zone": if we ever happened to find people from 16th century in stasis, I expect that we'd show a lot of curiosity about them, and hopefully compassion and understanding about what a cultural shock these people must be suffering, and desire to give them all the help possible to adjust. Sure, I can see some people feeling a certain annoyance occasionally as well if they proved difficult to handle, and some people might be thinking to themselves "These people are so backwards", but I expect that most would try to be patient and understanding, rather than judgmental, arrogant and contemptuous. Even if we aren't "evolved". But in "The Neutral Zone", it seems like almost everyone is looking down on the 20th century people, and the episode itself seems to be calling for the viewer to think "look at those stupid yobos, aren't they disgusting".
That's not evolved thinking, quite the opposite, it's arrogant and prejudiced.
Last edited:
One thousand is approximately the total number embarked ("Remember Me"). The crew is a subset of that.
But they obviously haven't evolved out of arrogance.
Look at "The Neutral Zone": if we ever happened to find people from 16th century in stasis, I expect that we'd show a lot of curiosity about them, and hopefully compassion and understanding about what a cultural shock these people must be suffering, and desire to give them all the help possible to adjust.
Sure, I can see some people feeling a certain annoyance occasionally as well if they proved difficult to handle, and some people might be thinking to themselves "These people are so backwards", but I expect that most would try to be patient and understanding, rather than judgmental, arrogant and contemptuous.
Even if we aren't "evolved". But in "The Neutral Zone", it seems like almost everyone is looking down on the 20th century people, and the episode itself seems to be calling for the viewer to think "look at those stupid yobos, aren't they disgusting".
Exactly...
Now, the business man character was a little way out- just found out he's in the 24th century, and all he wanted to know was where his money was. The other two seemed normal.
Then again, how many of those federation scientists did we see that seemed a little bit wacko and obsessed too?
Funny thing was, the moment they got a chance, the crew would go into the Holodeck, and bring up a program from the 15th-20th century eras, and jump right into it.
TNG really pushed the evolved bit, specially in the earlier episodes, however DS9 and Voyager backed off it a little, but just a little.
Last edited:
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
But they obviously haven't evolved out of arrogance.
Look at "The Neutral Zone": if we ever happened to find people from 16th century in stasis, I expect that we'd show a lot of curiosity about them, and hopefully compassion and understanding about what a cultural shock these people must be suffering, and desire to give them all the help possible to adjust. Sure, I can see some people feeling a certain annoyance occasionally as well if they proved difficult to handle, and some people might be thinking to themselves "These people are so backwards", but I expect that most would try to be patient and understanding, rather than judgmental, arrogant and contemptuous. Even if we aren't "evolved". But in "The Neutral Zone", it seems like almost everyone is looking down on the 20th century people, and the episode itself seems to be calling for the viewer to think "look at those stupid yobos, aren't they disgusting".
Other examples of TNG's arrogannce include the way the crew looked at the Bringloidi in "Up the Long Ladder", Picard's anti-religious rant in "Who Watches the Watchers", and Picard's initial unwillingness to help Sarjenka's people (given that such aid could have been rendered anonymously) in "Pen Pals).
And let's not forget how individual rights of small groups like colonists are treated in eps like "Journey's End".
Ron Moore: Godsfrakindamnit! Star Trek is on the TV again. I hate that show so much!
Ira Behr: I don't know how you worked on that franchise for ten years, I only managed eight before I was fired for desecrating Gene Roddenberry's corpse.
Ron Moore: I had to kill a lot of prostitutes in order to get my self-loathing out for working on that show.
Nicholas Meyer: You guys were lucky, I had to work on a franchise I hated AND work with William Shatner.
Ira Behr: All I can say is that I'm thankful for cocaine.
Nicholas Meyer: And devil worship.
Ron Moore: Hear hear!
TheGodBen: Ron honey, you left crumbs all over the sheets again, I've asked you repeatedly not to eat in bed!
There's a bit of a difference between being punched in the face and being stabbed with a knife; one will leave you with some discomfort for several days while the other has a good chance of killing you.
Humans are one of the four great ape species, we are just another animal in a biological sense, and like all animals we have an instinct for self-preservation hardwired into our bodies. That's why people that attempt to hang themselves have to stand on a collapsible platform, or why people that attempt to drown themselves have to tie a weight to their feet, if you don't do this then your body will take over and stop you. Standing up for your principles in the knowledge that you will die for doing so is a very heroic concept and it is something we all aspire to, but only a minority are actually capable of doing it, when the rest of us find ourselves in a difficult situation where our lives are threatened we will fall back on our firmware and do what we must to survive. That doesn't make us immoral, it is just what we are, and that instinct isn't going to go away in 400 years.
Now if you will excuse me I have to go and buy some cigarettes and whiskey for my Ronny.
Okay. The point remains, though.
Look at "The Neutral Zone": if we ever happened to find people from 16th century in stasis, I expect that we'd show a lot of curiosity about them, and hopefully compassion and understanding about what a cultural shock these people must be suffering, and desire to give them all the help possible to adjust. Sure, I can see some people feeling a certain annoyance occasionally as well if they proved difficult to handle, and some people might be thinking to themselves "These people are so backwards", but I expect that most would try to be patient and understanding, rather than judgmental, arrogant and contemptuous. Even if we aren't "evolved". But in "The Neutral Zone", it seems like almost everyone is looking down on the 20th century people, and the episode itself seems to be calling for the viewer to think "look at those stupid yobos, aren't they disgusting".
I watched that episode recently, and from what I remember, while Picard was a bit of a douche towards the stasis people, you can put that down to, at least in part, the stressful situation with the Romulans, and everyone else seemed to treat them ok, even if they found aspects about them a little strange.
No one in-universe really thinks they have, do they? I remember multiple quotes from characters describing humans, and Starfleet types in general, as arrogant. Off the top of my head, Neelix said it in a Voyage episode when describing them to some alien of the week.
I've been reading this thread and... wow. Just wow. 
Withers
Captain
It's been a while sense these shows that portray humanity so positively were produced. Since then, Americans especially, have had to reevaluate the idea of their being the "supreme force for good" in the world. I think a lot of people have concluded that, while the rhetoric sounds nice, it isn't necessarily entirely accurate. And when you really look at the motivations behind certain actions its pretty clear that it was never so cut and dry.
I think the same thing happened in Deep Space Nine and its portrayal of the Federation. The idea that everyone was so morally upstanding and that there were no conflicts between humans (or on Earth anyway) warranted some reexamination. The fact of the matter is no one would buy that premise today without way more explanation than Trek ever gave us. I think Behr realized that. And he was still able to keep them Starfleet- just not the unrealistic "Superman from the 1940s/infallible" Starfleet.
I think the same thing happened in Deep Space Nine and its portrayal of the Federation. The idea that everyone was so morally upstanding and that there were no conflicts between humans (or on Earth anyway) warranted some reexamination. The fact of the matter is no one would buy that premise today without way more explanation than Trek ever gave us. I think Behr realized that. And he was still able to keep them Starfleet- just not the unrealistic "Superman from the 1940s/infallible" Starfleet.
-Withers-
I have to say that of all the Star Trek series, DS9 was probably the most normal. I have to agree with others here in that DS9 portrayed a far more realistic Federation and starfleet than before. If I could give DS9 a tag line, it would be this...
"paradise has a price and these are the people who pay that price"
My interpretation is that not just earth but the whole of The Federation is paradise and the people of those worlds want for nothing. That is a utopia but in most science fiction and in reality as well there is reason that utopia exists.
It doesn't exist by shear luck and hope, it exists because there are people who fight to protect it. There are people who sacrifice comfort, safety and their very lives to preserve the world for the rest of their people. DS9 was a prime example of this.
The Federation citizens / starfleet officers stationed in places like DS9 that are far from The Federation are the ones protecting it. So sometimes in order to preserve and protect your world, you have to break the rules. It's like Sisko said "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" and that statement really sums up DS9 nicely.
"paradise has a price and these are the people who pay that price"
My interpretation is that not just earth but the whole of The Federation is paradise and the people of those worlds want for nothing. That is a utopia but in most science fiction and in reality as well there is reason that utopia exists.
It doesn't exist by shear luck and hope, it exists because there are people who fight to protect it. There are people who sacrifice comfort, safety and their very lives to preserve the world for the rest of their people. DS9 was a prime example of this.
The Federation citizens / starfleet officers stationed in places like DS9 that are far from The Federation are the ones protecting it. So sometimes in order to preserve and protect your world, you have to break the rules. It's like Sisko said "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" and that statement really sums up DS9 nicely.
I agree in point but disagree in points, Porthos.
I think it's a stretch to say that the whole UFP is a paradise where people want for nothing.
That might describe the "Core Worlds" like Earth, Vulcan, etc., but I've never gotten the feeling that it applies to, say, the colony worlds.
Here's how I see it:
On the core worlds, you basically have all of your basic needs provided for. Maybe not your wants, but if you actually need it, you can get something to fulfill the need. It'll be standard and plain and dull, but it fills the need. In exchange for having your needs provided for, however...Things are boring. They are very much dull and same. There's no poverty, no real deprivation, no racism, no hunger if you don't want to be hungry/deprived (like, say, monks might want to be), true, but things are probably very ossified, very constant. It's dull, in the same way that a comfortable suburban life is dull.
Not a problem for the wider whole, though! Because habitable planets are a dime a dozen in Trek, there are colonies everywhere. These can be set up by private venture (the vast majority), be former military posts where folks settled and turned it into a civilian colony (like towns grew throughout the Middle Ages on Earth), be sponsored by religious groups, be sponsored by planetary governments seeking to, say, relieve overpopulation (Earth probably did this a lot early on), or some mixture. Some are by now independent memebers of the UFP (Alpha Centauri might be an examp ofle depending on which theory of settlement you believe), but many concede control of external matters and remain as colonies, getting support from the homeworld or the UFP in exchange, or because they're too small to really make it, or for a variety of reasons. Thus, there might be 150 or so members of the UFP, but those members could each support dozens or hundreds of colonies.
Thing is...On the colonies, not everything is provided for you. Sometimes this is by choice, sometimes it's a reality of being a colony. You can actually live a better life on some of the colonies, but you actually have to work for it.
I think it's a stretch to say that the whole UFP is a paradise where people want for nothing.
That might describe the "Core Worlds" like Earth, Vulcan, etc., but I've never gotten the feeling that it applies to, say, the colony worlds.
Here's how I see it:
On the core worlds, you basically have all of your basic needs provided for. Maybe not your wants, but if you actually need it, you can get something to fulfill the need. It'll be standard and plain and dull, but it fills the need. In exchange for having your needs provided for, however...Things are boring. They are very much dull and same. There's no poverty, no real deprivation, no racism, no hunger if you don't want to be hungry/deprived (like, say, monks might want to be), true, but things are probably very ossified, very constant. It's dull, in the same way that a comfortable suburban life is dull.
Not a problem for the wider whole, though! Because habitable planets are a dime a dozen in Trek, there are colonies everywhere. These can be set up by private venture (the vast majority), be former military posts where folks settled and turned it into a civilian colony (like towns grew throughout the Middle Ages on Earth), be sponsored by religious groups, be sponsored by planetary governments seeking to, say, relieve overpopulation (Earth probably did this a lot early on), or some mixture. Some are by now independent memebers of the UFP (Alpha Centauri might be an examp ofle depending on which theory of settlement you believe), but many concede control of external matters and remain as colonies, getting support from the homeworld or the UFP in exchange, or because they're too small to really make it, or for a variety of reasons. Thus, there might be 150 or so members of the UFP, but those members could each support dozens or hundreds of colonies.
Thing is...On the colonies, not everything is provided for you. Sometimes this is by choice, sometimes it's a reality of being a colony. You can actually live a better life on some of the colonies, but you actually have to work for it.
TNG was a lot more realistic when they had characters like Shelby or Jellico show up, and cause a bit of friction.
True, and when you prance around the galaxy with the idea that you have the answers to every moral dilemma out there, and that only you can solve that problem, that just reeks of arrogance. "Why can't you be more like me?" seemed to be a lot of the gut-reactions from our crews when it came to cultural disputes. "We have all the answers and you better listen to us or you'll be sorry!" That's not exactly how it works in the real world (even when it comes to diplomacy).
Usually, in any scenario, I've found that one of the telltale signs of intolerance is a person or group of people who loves to make a public announcement about how tolerant they are. Generally, you find the opposite to be true. I find it interesting that Starfleet officers seem to love to, at the drop of a hat, offer up a speech about how tolerant and accepting they are...
^Yeah. Look at how accepting they were of the people in TNG's 'The Outcast' or in 'Symbiosis'. We humans may not approve of what they do, but it isn't really our place to come in and judge them.
