The questionable nature of the Marquis did eventually lead to my single favorite moment in Voyager. That being Chakotay finding out that yet another person in his crew had a hidden agenda and angrily asking if anyone on his ship had actually been working for him.
I remember this was very much a thing with some groups in the UK in the 90s. Quite often, the only members were undercover agents from different organisations.
As "The needs of the many" was one of the most fundamental and famous principles of Star Trek showing the affect this can have on "the few" was one of the smartest things the franchise ever did
@@AndrewLakeUK this framing is always hilarious, because it assumes that the people are ravenous wolves rather than the sheep. It would be more accurate to say that democracy is two sheep and a wolf deciding what to have for dinner, instead of the wolf just getting to eat whatever they want.
The entire point is that the effect on "the few" as in the Marquis are negligible and their own stupidity is the only real reasons for any lasting problems.
@mathewfinch 100% agree. Anyone using the "two wolves and a sheep" framing is explicitly arguing against democracy, and demonstrating their preference for minoritian rule.
Steve: “Hey you are in the hospital and can’t sleep because of sickle cell pain, how about a Trek video on a topic you have constantly debated in your head since you were 16!?” Thank you sir!❤️🙏🏾
Best wishes to you!! I recently lost a cousin to sickle cell complications. Even though we are strangers over the internet please know you are in my thoughts at this moment. All the best to you and get well soon! ✌🏽❤️
Good vid, as usual, yet I think you forgot to include one, perhaps most important argument in your consideration - Cardassians probably never meant to uphold their part of the treaty, they kept arming themselves, preparing for war. It was a bad deal, highly disadvantageous for the Federation and it's citizens. So the Maquis... there is more merit to their cause. Also I think you underestimate the importance the homeland has for the identity of peoples. It's more that just a place where you live. It's part of who you are.
The issue with the Maquis is the initial, TNG Maquis didn’t just not want to leave because of a sense of pride. They had spiritual reasons to not want to relocate, and were also not given a choice unlike the DS9 Maquis. This division could greatly influence a Starfleet officer’s decision on whether they would be willing to give up their career to stand up for a higher moral belief, like in the StarTrek movie. This distinction is also what makes the DS9 maquis easier to side against, in favor of Sisko. DS9 and how the audience views Sisko’s actions would be far darker and appalling if DS9 used the TNG Maquis. Imagine if Sisko had poisoned the atmosphere of the native American colony. Yikes.
Not to mention the fact that they explicitly stated in the episode that the people of that community had search for years to find a planet that they felt they could truly call home only to be told to get off by 2 super powers who see their home only as a commodity to be traded.
In a sense, you can view the original TNG Maquis as a marginalized minority group, and the more violent DS9 Maquis as those who co-opt the legitimate issues marginalized groups have for their own purposes. Rioters during BLM protests. Companies slapping rainbows on everything for pride month.
Except they were given a choice. "Journey's End" is the episode where that detail comes from. They just weren't given a choice initially. It was only after hostages were taken, that the Cardassians relented and said the colonists could stay on what would now be a Cardassian planet (again). The Federation and Cardassian diplomats then renegotiated the terms of the treaty to extend that choice to all Federation colonists in what would soon become Cardassian Territory and the newly formed DMZ.
The thing that I think ruins Steve's argument for me is that the assumption that the homes that the Federation were to give these colonists would be “just as good” as the homes that they must abandon. I'm sure the Federation _can_ find homes that were materially equivalent - there is no doubt that that could happen. But what if the criteria isn't just material, but spiritual and religious? What if the reason to leave wasn't just stubbornness and pride, but trauma? Like one example was Dorvan V, where the mountains and rivers welcomed the people who came there to escape persecution and to find a new home. What could the Federation say, for example, to a people who's ancestors came to a planet they call home now, died there, and their people could not feel like they could leave, because the land holds their honored dead? What if those people remember the times of persecution that other, less ethical Earth government had done to them, and when the Federation, another government, comes, promising to not do that… they refuse to believe the Federation? What if they were, say, descendants of Holocaust survivors who have no reason to believe that the Federation wouldn't do what the Nazis did to them, i.e. promise that they were being relocated, their relatives are happy and safe, and behind that was a lie that lead to another concentration camp? Are they wrong? Perhaps in a material sense… perhaps they are what Vulcans would say, illogical, clouded by emotion and emotional damage, and can be easily dismissed. But are they really? Like, to me, when you start involving tropes like this, there's a certain danger of minimizing the trauma caused by actual forced relocations and genocide, that _can_ and _have_ lasted longer than those who have directly lived them. The trauma lingers through the generations, and the fact that the Federation can be so goddamn _cavalier_ about it… that in itself strikes harder to the vision of Star Trek than anything else.
Now, question: didn't the treaty not only put a number of Federation colonies under Cardassian control ... but also put a number of Cardassian colonies under Federation control? The latter never gets mentioned except for Journey's End, and possibly in The Maquis Pts. 1 & 2.
The fate of those colonies was ripe for stories. Do they try to keep ties to the Cardassian worlds, which the Federation should allow, by their principles. But probably some Federation citizens dislike those ties or just think themselves a better option, so they turn on the charm and persuasion. Maybe some of the Cardassians see that as pressure, but others like the new freedom. Internal divisions form.
My personal thought on that was always that said Cardassians just never considered themselves part of the Federation to begin with. With how blatantly the Union would later on go with defying the terms of the treaty between themselves and the Federation, they only saw it as a temporary setback, of feigning like they cared, ignoring any Federation 'oversight' that might've happened.
The Cardassian colonists under Federation control form their own version of the Maquis called "The True Way" who we are told also commit a number of terrorist attacks against the Federation. They only get a few mentions in DS9, they try to kill First Minister Shakar and they blow up a runabout, but otherwise their story is never really explored and they disappear entirely by the time Cardassia joins the Dominion.
This makes me think about Sisko’s comment about how easy it is to be a saint in paradise. I also saw a lot of parallels between the DMZ and the post-Viet Nam repatriations, and the post-USSR Russia/NATO agreements; the federation (the US, NATO) failed to take into account the third party that was ignored when these peace talks happened; the people who live there. On all accounts, they never asked the people who lived in those lands what they wanted, they were an afterthought.
@@K11-s1i I did not, please don’t conflate what you think I said with what I actually said. You wouldn’t like people putting words in your mouth, don’t do it to others.
If allowing yourself to be relocated could end a war, it sounds like a simple answer to a simple trolley problem. Just move and there is peace. The problem is that ceding land to a hostile nation doesn't have a good track record of ending war. The Allies offered the Nazis land in Czechoslovakia to appease them, but as you may recall, the war was not successfully prevented. What's to stop the Cardassians from just starting another war, regardless of whether the colonists leave voluntarily?
Not really relevant in a galaxy setting where we are constantly told about unsettled habitual worlds. Clearly land is not a limited factor in the star trek world. At least not for the federation. Land have value on earth because its limited and we dont have replicators that can make tools and infrastructure a triviality.
I think … according to the lore of the show … the war weakened the Cardassians to the point where the Bajorans were able to overthrow their rule on their planet with a rebel force. The treaty made sense at the time for both sides because it stopped the death, destruction and weakening of both sides. Gul Dukat lamented how far the Cardassian Empire had fallen on several occasions. To your point, when they entered into an Alliance with the Dominion, they immediately went back to warring with the Federation. No one, not even the Cardassians, could have factored in the Dominion at the time of the Treaty.
I think where the Maquis as a narrative tool fails in star trek is that it demands an understanding of the government of the federation and its workings that the shows never want to delve into. Beyond democracy being uttered we never hear about how or who those politics represent. Why were the colonists not included in the peace talks, if they were (via representation in some sort of Congress?) why were there concerns not raised, why do they lack the power in the federation government to have their local concerns addressed ahead of forced relocation... Etc. It raises a lot of questions the show as a depiction of a frictionless utopia doesn't want to deal with. Which is fine... But I think that is where the seams of the star trek world building really start to show.
With the best will in the galaxy I guess it would be difficult to construct a vast interstellar democratic federation that spans two quadrants where individual parts of that federation - especially sparsely populated colonies on the periphery - didn't feel left out of federal decision making to some degree, even if they do technically have a vote or three in some vast Federation Parliament or Congress.
I don't think it was ever made explicit, but I always got the vibe that the reason the Federation was so willing to sign off on the treaty they did despite how many of their own citizens got screwed was because Starfleet wasn't confident they had the resources to win a quick decisive victory over the Cardassians if full on war broke out because of the losses at Wolf 359. A Starfleet at full strength would've been a bigger bargaining chip for the Federation to hold over the Cardassians. While the Federation likely would've won either way, a post-Wolf 359 Starfleet would've had to fight longer and thus likely would've suffered greater losses.
That makes sense as to why the Federation would negotiate such a deal. However, that doesn't explain why the colonist's governments were not included in the negotiations. That's like the US giving Texas to Mexico without even talking to the Texas government until the deal was already made.
There is also the reality they gave up nothing really. Relocating colonists that do not have an advanced industrial society is child's play in a world with replicators. Unless the planets in question had some rare resources its a simple solution that was only complicated because of suicidal colonists demanding the federation start a war over their sparsely populated farming colonies. Its not like they become destitute and lost everything if they relocated.
@@lucasbachmannProbably more. Many of the Dominion War episodes seem to portray Starfleet and allied losses in the hundreds of vessels, and tens of thousands of crew. From what I recall of Wolf 359, it was 40 ships in that fleet, hastily gathered from what ships that Starfleet could scrounge up. Taking into accounts that the Wolf 359 ships may not be been as ‘optimized’ for combat as the Dominion War era ships, then the issue is arguably even worse…
I think there's another argument to be made here, or at least one I'm sure some Maquis would make - that the Cardassians are a galactic power that must always be opposed, and that _any_ peace treaty with them is intrinsically unjust and invalid. While the war is portrayed as intractable and costly, many such Maquis clearly disagree with the careful diplomacy and difficult decisions that led to the treaty.
I know its two years late but this has always been my read on it. Peace with a fascist government is never justifiable, and given how the Maquis are able to wipe the floor with the Cardassians it seems likely the UFP would have won the war
I can't believe it's taken 28 years, but it just occurred to me that the Federation/Cardassian treaty isn't dissimilar to the neutral zones created between the UFP and Klingon and Romulan spaces.
I found that Ro provided a good outline of the reasons for the anti-cardassian insurgency, and that Eddington was overall a sympathetic figure (and a real hero). I was won over by Janeway and drawn into Voyager from the beginning by her fundamental respect and understanding of the maquis, with no condescending attitudes (which we were reminded of in Repression & Shattered). Well done!
I daresay that one of the things that I found rather telling about all of the Maquis situation was that very little was ever mentioned about how the Cardassian colonies felt or reacted to the same thing happening to them. As if they didn't have any issues finding themselves suddenly citizens of the Federation. One can assume, I suppose that those colonists who opposed it were happily given passage back to Cardassian space, but there would still be plenty left over. Just found that a rather interesting absence in that whole kerfuffle. :)
I always assumed there was a disbalance, that the feds offered up a lot more colonies. It does suit their style. Also, I too assume the Cardassians have their ways to assure their relocation
@@henryburby6077 And/or a lot of the colonists would have been happy to _be_ relocated. You can't forget the generations long indoctrination to "service to the Cardassian state" and how that would shape the opinions of much of its population.
i always got the impression that they just didnt midn living under fed rule . yeah they would have rather stayed in the empire but remmber the inciting incident for the maquis wasnt just htat they weere undwer Kardy law now but that the Kardies promised to leave them be and then didnt . i could imagine a very similar episde as journeys end happening when a fed colony ship arrives at one of those card colonies expecting them to up and move and they dont and the feds are like "oh ok no biggy" and leave and just basically ignore them. if the Cardies haD just left the yet to be Maquis alone then everything would have been fine
I think you missed the main point of the Maquis. The Federation was built to allow all it's member planets to govern themselves for the most part. Yet, the Federation didn't even think to involve the local governments in their negotiations. The Enterprise (and likely other ships) just showed up and where like, "Hey everyone, so we just gave your planet away. Get out now." That is basically like the military showing up at your door saying, "We gave away your house. We''ll help you move to a new house, but you will have to build it yourself. Get out now." The Maquis were not just fighting the Cardassians invading their planets, but also pissed at the Federation. While not exactly taxation without representation, it as close as you can get when there are no taxes.
But it was established that the Federation Colonists were the ones in the wrong. They settled on a Cardassian world without permission. They were the invaders and responcible for the whole war from the start.
@@brettmajeske3525 I don't know where you got that idea from. In TNG episode that started the whole thing, they said these were Federation planets until the treaty gave them away. That is not the same thing an invading a planet.
@@joearnold6881 When it comes to the Federation. I think they really would give them a new home planet. Maybe even a better one. Still, kicking someone out of their home is just a shitty thing to do. No matter the why.
@@rug212001 The whole history of the war and treaty takes several episodes to be revealed. It is eventually revealed in DS9 and Voyager is that the war started because the colonists thought they were settling on unclaimed worlds, even though Cardassia had claimed those regions over a generation before. Basically the colonists only checked Federation records, and never bothered to see if non-Federation species had made claims. The Treaty removing the colonists was a recognition by the Federation that those colonists were the instigators in the first place and that Cardassia had the prior claim. In return Cardassia left planets they had seized during the war, returning everything back to the status quo.
I think that one problem the Maquis had was, ironically enough, the defectors from Starfleet. This situation, this cause, seems to have triggered an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the Fleet's hierarchy and structure. I think it could even be tied into the legendary 'evil Admiral' syndrome, which could suggest more than the Enterprise-D had to deal with these ambitious and destructive agendas. We could even tie it into Satie's corrupt inquisition. Maybe before she was turned back by Picard, some careers were impaled on her Umbridge-like rampage and it left other officers feeling alienated from a structure that tolerated her for so long. My point is, the near-mantra of 'You Have Your Orders' in that 'special' tone of voice may have been feeding a rebellion larger than the colonists' cause for a while.
Even the "Lower Decks" season 3 finale suggested that the evil Admirals we've seen in TNG, DS9 and the movies weren't isolated cases. Captain Freeman said: "You're not one of those Admirals who are up to no good. You're better than that." While it may seem funny on the surface, to me it shows that these evil Admirals may be symptoms of a larger problem within Starfleet's higher ranks, probably some form of corruption and competition of egos. So I find it nice that LD acknowledges that with this single line. ua-cam.com/video/rsEyok6poRc/v-deo.html
The issue I have is...like...the Cardassians are shown as being so horrible and fascist and awful that no longer fighting against them when you're capable of resisting seems like almost a worst crime than the relocations.
Bit late to the party here, but I think the assumption that the relocation would allow them to live the same life is fraught. Not only is it clear that many of the Maquis had spiritual reasons for wanting their land, but in a post-scarcity environment like the Federation, the only thing that still has any value IS land. If the land elsewhere was good and suitable, these peoples wouldn't have had to colonize the ass end of nowhere, and the Cardassians wouldn't care about claiming these planets. In fact, we're told this outright in Journey's End: These people left Earth 200 years ago due to it being unsuitable for their way of life and only found a suitably planet for themselves 20 years ago. Whatever they need, Dorvan V is the only known option. Chakotay's people, similarly, had been living in that region for 'centuries.' The Federation's offer to resettle them comes with a massive drop in quality of life.
With your literal interpretation of the Marquis, I agree with you, except for your view on the Natives they were trying to relocate in TNG. You said it wouldn't dilute/attempt to destroy their culture, but they specifically said they believed the planet they were on was sacred, and they were meant to be there. They had a spiritual connection to the land, and it wasn't just a home they could replace. The federation just trying to simply move them somewhere else greatly disrespects their cultural beliefs and devalues their spiritual connection to the land.
You might feel a bit differently about forced relocation if you actually had to do it. I know in Star Trek it’s a bit different because they have beaming and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of identical planets, but nonetheless, home is home. I think the problem with trying to fit a gritty bunch of freedom fighters such as the Maquis into a show like Star Trek is that the Federation is so well established as a super squeaky clean place to live that it’s difficult to create a scenario comparable to the situation that created the original Maquis. Side note: it’s also why I struggle with the newer grittier Trek series we’ve seen of late. They feel a bit shoehorned into the squeaky clean Trek universe.
I was personally never invested in the the Maquis plotlines. Mostly for the reasons Steve highlighted, but also because I think DS9 did a much better job with the Bajoran story arch's. When compared to what the Bajorans went through during the Occupation, the Maquis motivations come off as kind of hollow
Yeah... Honestly, I'm a little surprised very little attempt was made to tie those two plot thread together. Like, I think we saw a few former Bajorian militia joining the Maquis. Overall, however, Bajor was usually portrayed as too wrapped up in their own affairs to regard the Maquis with anything more than sympathetic condolences at best. I can certainly understand why Bajor would be reluctant to risk another conflict with Cardasia, but seriously, for many Bajorans fighting Cardasia is all they'd ever known. I really might have expected at least a highly vocal sect to be of the opinion, _that was us not too long ago, we know all too well the horror of living under that oppression and we cannot allow ourselves to sit idly by while it happens to anyone else._ Certainly I wouldn't expect all of Bajor to rally to the cause. Pretty much the entire point of DS9 was to show that alien races aren't just monolithic planets of hats. Still it's a missed opportunity all the same that more wasn't done to tie anything together into a more cohesively interconnected storyline.
The Maquis' motivation I could understand. Did the Federation ever offer them something in payment for their being moved from their homes? Simple relocation isn't enough. The religious fanaticism and constant superstition of the Bajorans turned me off to them entirely.
I think it was a mistake for the Maquis to have been destroyed kinda unceremoniously off screen in season (5? 6?) -- i think they could have had an arc that could have had a major impact on the overall story in the war with the dominion.
Gul Dukat You might ask, should we fear joining the Dominion? And I answer you: Not in the least. We should embrace the opportunity. The Dominion recognizes us for what we are, the true leaders of the Alpha Quadrant. And now that we are joined together, equal partners in all endeavors, the only people with anything to fear will be our enemies. My oldest son's birthday is in five days. To him, and to Cardassians everywhere, I make the following pledge: By the time his birthday dawns, there will not be a single Klingon alive inside Cardassian territory. Or a single Maquis colony left within our borders. Cardassia will be made whole, all that we have lost will be ours again. And anyone who stands in our way will be destroyed. This I vow with my life's blood, for my son, for all our sons.
They could have had a role much like Kira in the final sequence of episodes, finding themselves suddenly on the same side as Damar and navigating a future where they might have to be given a place at the table in Cardassian politics.
Another parallel with history is the Federation/Cardassian treaty. It's very similar to the Munich accords, where the allies gave everything to Hitler and the Nazis in order to appease them. It abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and later lead to war.
It's true, they mention several times that the treaty was a bad deal for the Federation, that they gave away too much for the sake of "peace" a peace the Cardassians clearly had no intention of honoring. It seems to me that the war must have been so politically unpopular in the Federation that they were willing to end it at any cost regardless of how it was going to hurt them down the road. The Federation essentially kowtowing to a third rate power like the Cardassians is laughable. As Quark says peace at any cost is irresponsible.
I might be able to agree with you in part if it weren't for the fact that the Cardassians violated the treaty from the start. Cardassia was in a far worse situation than the Federation at the end of the war, and a cold war was preferable to them. While they were arming and assisting their people, the Federation was imprisoning theirs. I'm sure the Federation's naivety was amusing to them.
Love this one Steve but I don't think I fully agree with you on the Maquis being much harder to justify when we interpret them literally. When I watch Trek and see the scenes about the peace treaty ceding territory, it reminds me of Neville Chamberlain getting back to Britain and declaring peace for our time. Absolutely the actions are a bad look and tarnish the image of the federation, however, I would argue that this goes beyond Starfleet hypocrisy and more to active appeasement and collaboration with a fascist state, and that's something I cannot justify even if we are putting the interests of the many over the few. We also learn that during the Dominion war, Cardassia and the Jem'Hadar went all out in hunting down and killing all Maquis in their space. And I think the Cardassian plan to make life so hard for colonists that they 'willingly' leave reads as evoking sundown towns and gentrification. The stated goal of ending a war and securing peace is certainly admirable and in the interests of everyone, however, I dont think it is ethically justifiable at any time to collaborate and appease fascists that treat Maquis members and their communities as subhuman.
Eddington's "in some ways your worse then the borg" speech and Jake's Sisko's book suggesting the marquis we romanticized suggests that quite a lot of the Marquis were people with a ill defined grudge against the federation who choose that cause just because its was well known (like thomas Riker, he wasn't one of the colonists). There more like militias and the trucker convoy people as in they declare they have a freedom and that everybody else has to pay whatever cost is needed for them to have that freedom (in the Marquis case that is for millions of die in a war so they don't have to move to an equally nice place) stick there fingers in their ears if anyone suggests there even is a price then get violent when they don't get exactly want they want.
THANK YOU. I've been saying essentially this same thing for years, but in slightly different words. I've always viewed Starfleet officers like Thomas Riker, and especially Michael Eddington, who didn't even live on those colonies as being like Fox News watchers who already have some feelings of discontentment with their government and then see their chance to go play hero and join a militia and then show up at the Capitol armed and ready to fight for some ill-defined "freedom" they claim they lost. The only difference between them and other Maquis is that some of them actually personally felt inconvenienced at one point. And because of that, they feel they have the right to threaten the fragile (turns out very fragile) peace forged in an entire quadrant of the galaxy.
@@sebastiang7394 -- Bringing the war in Ukraine into this has its limitations. For one thing, Russia and Ukraine both have declining population growth rates. This means that the Russian government _may not want_ millions of people evacuating Russian-held territory to re-settle in the rest of Ukraine after the war. Russian colonists can bring money and labour but they wouldn't know the land and its resources anywhere nearly as well as existing inhabitants. For another, the Russian economy might be in the toilet right now, but its not operating on the principles of mercantilism in the way the Cardassian Union does. It's an oil company run by gangsters.
That's very much like what happens with peaceful protests that quickly turn violent IRL in our time. Quite often there is actually another faction at work at those protests with absolutely zero interest in the subject matter being protested - they have their own grudges and issues (or they simply like the excuse and opportunity to be violent for vioences sake) and they set out from the start to _make_ the peaceful protests turn violent. You can often rather easily tell the genuine protestors from this violent faction trying to userp "crowd mentality" because they're the ones hiding their faces, whereas the genuine peaceful ones that have honest intentions and actually _support_ the cause legitimately usually do not hide their faces.
One thing you have added to the Eddington video or this one was the fact that Sisko’s best friend had joined and ultimately died and that pain could have added to the resentment of the marquis and a transference on to Eddington. At first Sisko was more sympathetic to them. Just a thought.
I’ve often gone back and forth on them, as a group. I think you summed up why. Yes, they were in a bad situation, and perceived to be left out to dry by the Federation, but a lot of their continued struggles were by choice. They had options.
@@damenwhelan3236 but we're seeing this very thing play out right now all across the US (and even Canada). This one move by the government will save millions of lives and yes it's inconvenient but for the greater good of the society at large this is what we have to do. The Marquis are like the karens of that world saying nope I won't do it millions can die for all I care cuz I don't wanna.
@@sandrasnow-balvert7766, I wonder if this is more of a problem in the US. Despite Thatcher saying "there is no such thing as society", most of us understand that price of personal freedom must be paid to benefit the country. We argue about how much, and what constitutes a benifit, but we know we must do our bit. Europe even more so.
@@AndrewLakeUK There has to be a balance. The Chinese see their genocide against the Uyghur as a necessary "social" move to maintain the cultural character of the nation. Harmony by eliminating the people who are different. I'm not a libertarian, but I much prefer the American focus on the individual's rights.
If the Maquis don't have enough ships to move the colonists off world, it kind of renders Kira's line in "For the Uniform" about "The Maquis have started to evacuate those planets we just gassed" kind of moot.
Steve: Love your content. Your videos bring an amazing amount of extra world-building and depth to Star Trek lore. However, I would contest (a little) your assertion that _"Journey's End"_ (S07E20) was the starting point for the Maquis. I think the roots of the Maquis (at least from the point of view of Star Fleet personnel being involved) goes back to _"The Wounded"_ (S05E12) in which Captain Benjamin Maxwell (USS Phoenix) goes rogue and starts attacking Cardassian vessels, space stations and transports.
@@andrewanastasovski1609 ds9 started after tng ended. Outside of one or two characters that crossed over between ds9 and tng, It was ds9 and voyager that aired concurrently.
I'd be really curious to see an indigiounous/first nations perspective on this. I appreciate your take on this Steve, but do you happen to have any recomended creators with that background?
This is a good video, well done Steve. The one thing Star Trek (and most SciFi) gets wrong is that there never appears to be many emotional/cultural advancements to match the technological advancements that have been made. As said, with the way the Federation works, it's basically a paradise. For the most part you can live where you want, because of replicator technology you are never want for food, shelter or belongings, and you seem to have complete autonomy over everything you do. So if you were on one of those planets on the border, always under threat of attack during the war and someone says "Hey, so you have to leave this planet but we've got a fully stocked beachfront condo for you where the surfing is always good, plus the planet has beautiful mountains if you want to go snowboarding or hiking on the weekends and you can continue to be an artist who hasn't made a single good piece of art for a decade if you just agree to go." You'd jump on that offer in a second. The real Maquis did what they did because they had no where else to go and literally no way to just replicate their life somewhere else. That element is completely missing in the ST universe, so it makes all episodes around those topics fall flat.
It’s just a _little_ much to frame it like they should trust the empire that took away their rights and protections as citizens to deal fairly in giving them new, adequate homes, and that they couldn’t just take those homes away, also, whenever convenient. The Federation threw those citizens away. That they offered a reservation to live on which they totally promise will be just as nice as the sacred land they’d already had (supposedly as part of the federation) doesn’t make it any better. Then, when the milquetoast “promise you’ll be nice to them” guarantee the federation got for them fell apart and they started _getting killed_ … Idk about calling them the asshole for not fleeing their homes under violent attack to the very uncertain (possible) resettlement by their previous oppressors. I’m just saying. They’re definitely complicated, definitely not purely “the good guys” but the story situation, especially at the beginning of the conflict before it got more bitter, imo isn’t quite as far away from the metaphorical situation as you think.
While I feel that you do have a point and that the issue of the maquis needs to be looked at from both sides, I would like to point out that it is not easy to just pack up and leave, particularly when you have lived their for decades. Case in point, you mentioned the native Americans in Journies End. They told Picard that they spent years looking for the right planet to settle on. For them it wasn't a matter of it just being their home, they also had a spiritual connection to it. That is something that cannot be settled by a new home on another planet within the borders of the federation.
Wasn't there the twist in there that the colonists and the Maquis were aware that the Cardasians were violating the terms of the peace agreement, and Starfleet did not want to see that?
Well, Starfleet DID become aware of that, but they were so hell-bent on honoring the treaty for the sake of "peace" that they basically were willing to turn a blind-eye to the Cardassians' clear violations. Starfleet basically, and foolishly, believed that the honor system would solve everything.
The question many would ask, if they accept this, what about next time? Will it become a regular practice to cede my home to others anytime you uave a war? What about Cardassian concessions? Besides stopping firing at the federation and the installation of Terok Nor, what did they give up?
I think the approach to problem solving via relocation missed a couple of points. Consider the following: Your people have relocation to a world because there's a long history of losing their homes and cultures to wars not of their choosing, colonization, and subjugation. This new world is their chance to start again. Time passes. They have ben on this new world for generations. Hope grows. Now a war they know nothing of brews elsewhere, and without their consent or input, they are visited and told of this war, a new treaty to which they were not consulted, and are forced with the ancient problem again of losing their homes to another colonial power. This creates a reopening of that old wound; under what circumstances will they be guaranteed that any world they go to will not result in the same broken promise? Realistically, and long term, there's zero guarantee. Any species or culture capable of interstellar travel and warfare could and might take their world again. Thus the resistance. They have one truth: they can trust each other. Such it has been. So it will be again. The Cardassians (and Romulans) are the stand-in for fascist powers, and as such, there's absolutely zero chance they will not perform ethnic cleansing or subjugation. The approach by Star Fleet first comes off as a promise, which is then broken, followed by a display of power, followed by a further negotiation on their behalf to another stellar power. The inhabitants of this world are given the illusion of input, but we all know how this will end. Without their own independent ability to travel the stars and fight on their behalf, they are passengers in this negotiation. This could only lead to the Maquis. This was one world of many, all whom share a story very similar to the above. And it always will, in one way or another. Seeing this from the Star Fleet perspective, where all the information is on hand, may lead to a pragmatic and easy decision, but many of these cultures aren't privy to that information. They certainly weren't consulted. As the viewer, we are gifted that information such that we may agree with the desperation of the Star Fleet standpoint. But we're not these people on these worlds, with their shared experiences and history. We're people on a couch watching a show. Unless you're indigenous. Like my family. Who know these stories very intimately. We'd be Maquis too. And yes, my wife would say "I'm just another asshole."
It's hard to overstate how effective the FFI was during the war. France gets a lot of schtick to this day, particularly from Brits, about the French surrender. Well, if it wasn't for the English Channel, there's no way the UK could have resisted a massed blitzkrieg.
@@pantherpopel551 Not true. Open a book about the war before you spout nonsense. "From June 1940, Britain and its Empire continued the fight alone against Germany. Churchill engaged industry, scientists and engineers to advise and support the government and the military in the prosecution of the war effort. Germany's planned invasion of the UK was averted by the Royal Air Force denying the Luftwaffe air superiority in the Battle of Britain, and by its marked inferiority in naval power. Subsequently, urban areas in Britain suffered heavy bombing during the Blitz in late 1940 and early 1941. The Royal Navy sought to blockade Germany and protect merchant ships in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Army counter-attacked in the Mediterranean and Middle East, including the North-African and East-African campaigns, and in the Balkans. The United Kingdom and allied countries signed the Declaration of St James's Palace in June 1941 committing to no separate peace with Germany and setting out principles to serve as the basis of a future peace. Churchill agreed an alliance with the Soviet Union in July and began sending supplies to the USSR. By August, Churchill and American President Franklin Roosevelt had drafted the Atlantic Charter to define goals for the post-war world. In December, the Empire of Japan attacked British and American holdings with near-simultaneous offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific including an attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor. Britain and America declared war on Japan, opening the Pacific War. The Grand Alliance of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union was formed and Britain and America agreed a Europe first grand strategy for the war. The Declaration by United Nations drafted by Roosevelt and Churchill in Washington in December 1941 formalised the Allies of World War II. The UK and her Allies suffered many disastrous defeats in the Asia-Pacific war during the first six months of 1942. There were eventual hard-fought victories in 1943 in the North-African campaign, led by General Bernard Montgomery, and in the subsequent Italian campaign. British forces played major roles in the production of Ultra signals intelligence, the strategic bombing of Germany, and the Normandy landings of June 1944. The liberation of Europe followed on 8 May 1945, achieved with the Soviet Union, the United States and other Allied countries. The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest continuous military campaign of the War."
@@pantherpopel551 I wouldn't have gone that far. The Battle Of Britain put the Luftwaffe into a position that they couldn't recover from. After that point, a German victory was all but impossible. The British couldn't beat Germany on the ground, but Germany couldn't have survived for too long until it suffocated under embargoes. The Royal Navy's Home Fleet alone was more than four times more powerful than the entire Kreigsmarine.
You are very much right about that. Its rather tiresome. But that doesn't mean that the maquis were effective/impactful irl. That said its total doesn't matter how effective they were, they still fought back.
Absolutely agree. As someone who studied the fall of France in 1940 at university, I do get very tired of lazy "French Cowardice" arguments form people who really don't know what they're talking about. As you say, were it not for the English channel, the UK would have been equally (or I would argue much more screwed) as France. However I do think there is also a slight over statement of the effectiveness of the FFI (the De Gaulle sponored resistance), especially when linked to post war Gaullist propaganda seeking to restore Nationalist spirit in France. Veterans of May 1940 (many of whom had spent the rest of the war in German forced labour), were ignored post war due to being an uncomfortable reminder of the defeat. The impact of the FFI was mixed and regional. In Southern/Vichy France where there was much less German Army presence, resistance under the banner of FFI played a large role in liberating the region in concern with the Allied landings in the south of France. Similarly across France there were indeed many valuable acts of sabotage and intelligence fathering done by Marquis and FFI fighters often in collaboration with SOE. They certainly made a difference. However at he same time, much of the more aggressive and arguably significant acts were done by more left wing groups, many linked to the CP or the Spanish Republican cause. Things like assassinations of senior germans, acts of sabotage, and out right fighting after the allied invasion. Groups such as the Communist backed FTP, or the famous Manouchian Group (part of the international section of FTP). In some regions they were the only resistance active for large period of the occupation. Yet in popular history their role is often down played, or their narrative given to the FFI by a conservative post war government keen to down play the role of the left and over embellish it's own part. So basically I would agree the role of the resistance in France is hard to overstate, but with a very heavy caveat that FFI and Marquis are not interchangeable terms, and when crediting the FFI with the actions of the "French resistance" then there may well be examples of overstatement. One other thing I find a little irritating is the role the French resistance play in our recollection of the Second World War, perhaps at the expense of other resistance and partisan movements. Again the culprit here is often post war Gaullist propaganda, but also with a fairly heavy dose of romance associated with French culture and fictional portrayals. The French resistance make better and more glamorous protagonists for films and other media as a result of France being such a cultural and fashion leader, than perhaps the Belgian or Yugoslav resistance. So while France gets a good deal of not undeserved attention, I always feel that it comes somewhat at the expense of other regions resistance movements. In Yugoslavia Tito's partisans fought an all out war against German occupation and essentially liberated themselves. In Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, partisan bands (some of which were Jewish) fought a war of sabotage and ambush, that involved thousands upon thousands of fighters. In Italy the Garibaldi brigades of the CP, amongst others, essentially liberated the North after the German occupation. In Norway resistance helped destroy and disrupt the Nazi Nuclear program, and Norway itself tied up a higher proportion of occupying troops than any other occupied country. In the Netherlands and Belgium well organised resistance aided escaping Jews, sabotaged the German war effort and gave the allies vital intelligence. In Warsaw in 1944 the Polish Home Army rose up and took over the city, before fighting a long a bloody battle against the Germans, which sadly ended in defeat. And even in France many other nationalities fought the Germans, amongst them Poles, Eastern European Jews, Muslims. When Paris was liberated in August 1944 by LeClercs 2 Armoured division, at the head of the French column entering Paris was a battalion of Spanish republicans (many of them Anarchists) who had fled their country in 1939 and continued to fight fascism ever since. So I guess in conclusion, I totally agree with you. But I also always feel like it's worth mentioning that France still gets more than perhaps it's fair share of attention in terms of Second World War resistance. Thus I always feel obliged to also give some credit to the many other nationalities and regions that fought back during that period.
"Federation society isn't quite the Utopia it's usually depicted as." When people point out things like this in Star Trek as some form of evidence that the Federation isn't a Utopia, I feel they are completely missing the point of Star Trek. The universe is NOT a Utopia. Star Trek is about HUMANITY rising to our better nature and coming together to help one another. And while we have eliminated poverty and a whole bunch of other problems there are still many external threats that need to be addressed. People in Star Trek seek social currency rather than monetary currency. With money no longer being needed to maintain ones daily life people are free to pursue their passions. For people in Star Fleet, since that's our perspective into the Universe, it's a life of service be it to exploration, medicine, engineering, command, and etc. In DS9 we see Jake becomes a "reporter" though he's probably more akin to a Blogger in todays terms. Just look at all the people who create great content on UA-cam, Or in gaming who create massive mods for no charge, or Open Source software that contributes to tons of people for no pay. Basically Star Trek is like one massive Open Source society were people give their time because it's something they enjoy rather than because they need money to survive. People don't need money, they need what you can buy with money like food. People's obsession with money has skewed their perspective on how the world really works. During the video you comment on how money doesn't exist so relocation cost don't matter. But this is a very narrow view I hear all the time with people pushing programs saying that cost shouldn't matter because something is morally the right thing to do. The thing is though when economist talk about "Cost" they don't really mean money like an accountant does. Cost is a bunch of things like opportunity cost on what you could be doing during that time instead, such as a ship relocating those people couldn't be doing any number of other things. There is also resource cost like there are some Techs people wanna promote as being moral correct but ignore the fact that they require rare materials that we just have enough of to scale up to the point where it would actually work and printing more "money" isn't gonna change that, it's like all the worlds money it's gonna buy you a mountain of Gold as tall as Everest because there just isn't enough Gold. This is the resource cost as we live in a universe where resources are limited so using them for one thing means you don't have them for something else. The final cost I'm going to go over is energy cost. As technology has improved we have gotten better forms of energy which allow us to free ourselves from much of the manual labor on the past. This more than anything is what has shaped society as with cheaper energy it makes the other two cost lower. The industrial revolution brought about massive changes to energy which allowed us to harness new forms of energy so ships powered by steam could cross the ocean in days to weeks rather than months allowing for great reduction in time cost of people's lives on travel. It also allowed for faster resource gathering which created an abundance of resources not seen before in all fields be in farming, mining, and etc. The future is Fusion, it's why so many people talk about if we can master fusion we will become a post scarcity society, much like Star Trek. With massive abundant cheap energy that doesn't need to sun to shine or wind to blow and can operate in hostile regions, like deep space where the further you are from the sun the less power solar panels get, you can setup mining outpost to help with those resource cost. It's estimated one gold rich asteroid could potentially yield more gold than has been mined in all of human history, and odds are such ships/outpost will be Fusion powered. And to power these reactor they need Helium-3 which is abundant on the moon. I forgot the exact estimates but it's something like one small shipment of HE3 could potentially provide enough HE3 to power the planet for a year, though as we don't have a working power planet yet it's mostly speculation on how efficient it would be. But regardless of the exact numbers space is the next major gold rush and it's why so many countries have a renewed interest in space.
I disagree with your conclusion on the in setting read here and I think it comes down to our estimation of Cardassian strength. Given that in setting the cardassian border wars with the federation where so unimpactful that they could be ignored while still ongoing in the early seasons of TNG and that the klingons where able to conquer them in only a couple of weeks, *less then a month*! I would not make the moral calculus that the ceiding of the Maquis planets and the attempted forced relocation was superior to defending them even if it provoked a longer/larger war. I'm aware that those two setting elements where mainly dictated by out of universe writing considerations but the result is that the cardassians seem to be unable to meaningfully pose a threat to the federation without the Dominions help. Or at the very most where a paper tiger that looked far more threatening then they were.
Something else that bugs me a lot about this contrived situation is that they mention there are also a load of Cardassians living on planets that will now belong to the Federation. It doesn't really take King Solomon to think "How about if the Federation and Cardassian Union just swap who owns those planets, then?"
they did swap those planets but the people did not want to leave them. So original they were Cardassians planets then became Federation Planets and vice versa
Two reasons: 1: They did swap as part of the peace process. Probably because of... 2: There were probably enclaves. Would the Cardassians allow the federation to enter their territory to get to a planet and vice versa?
the cardassians purposefully asked for the planets that would cause the Feds the most trouble as they didnt see the treaty as a long term deal they were just using it as an excuse toi gear up for round 2
You know what I never really understood about the whole treaty was just why the Federation signed it in the first place. Honestly it would be like the USA or Russia signing a treaty giving away land to Thailand. The Cardassian Union was a regional power at best, by all rights the Federation should have been able to stomp them, the only reason they didn't was a lack of conviction, a 'peace at any cost' mentality that was present politically. If I had my home given away by my government to a nation that was no real threat militarily I'd be pretty pissed as well. On that subject it would have been interesting to see if there was any legal remedy that the colonists could have taken against the Federation government giving up their worlds. Then again I suppose the Core Worlds like Earth, Vulcan, etc. with their billions of people would be like "err a few million people are bitching? screw 'em, I don't want war."
An imperfect metaphor came to mind as you were ending this comparing it to a different type of relocation. Not relocation because of an invading force but because of nature. There are many places right now that are increasingly at risk of regular and serious flooding and different governments have tried to do different things to encourage people to move some place that is not at risk of washing into the sea or getting swept away by a river every few years. Some of these plans have been better and some have been worse but there are some people who, for a variety of reasons, are interested in no offer no matter how good it is because in a certain sense you can't replace a home. You can build a new one, but it isn't a 1 for 1 trade. However, governments then have to decide what amount of support they are able and willing to provide people who refuse to leave and have to deal with the bad situation that they choose to stay in and if/when the government does not come to there aid they unsurprisingly feel betrayed. And yes there is a big difference between a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with (and is in part the result of our own choices) and a fascist government claiming territory and choosing to treat its inhabitants poorly but most of that is in the morality what is doing the destruction as opposed to the options of the people who have to react to it. And yes there are also many star trek episodes (and a movie) that are literally about moving people away from actual natural disasters/similar phenomenon.
Part of the problem with the proposed forced relocation of Dorvan V was that what the Federation was doing to those Native American colonists was the same kind of behavior that previous polities have done to the Native Americans - the dismissal of spiritual and cultural beliefs over political and economic expedience, couched in the language of secular enlightenment. Ironically, TNG's depiction of how the Federation behaves towards those that would become the Maquis strike deeper into the vision of Roddenberry's Federation than what DS9 tried. Here are the consequences of a polity that sees itself as enlightened, so enlightened that it can bulldoze the beliefs and practices of its subject peoples, who are _very clearly_ subject peoples _beneath_ the consideration of the enlightened metropole that agreed to this settlement, that the only time they are given a say is when they are given the marching orders to GTFO by someone who is not even at the highest levels of their government, a government that, nominally, they have a say in. The ironic part is that DS9 _already_ had aspects of questioning the secular enlightenment ideals of the Federation with Sisko's elevation into Prophet-hood. The only difference being, of course, that the Prophets are “real” space beings with Deus Ex Machina-esque powers that the Federation cannot automatically dismiss and steamroller over. Power does, it appears, come from the barrel of a gun.
Yea religious arguments have no place in politics. Spoiler alert. Faith never feed and clothed people. At best it just made people better able to handle suffering. And at worst it leads to masses of humans wanting to exterminate others. So no more of that pls.
The Maquis story line was very good.... then pissed on and ended with a throw away line in Voyager. "Hey Torres, remember Ted and them when we rolled with the Maquis? Yeah they dead." - Chakotay.
I think there's an element missing in this story- many who joined the Maquis were former Bajoran resistance fighters, who have a very justified bone to pick with the Cardis.
As a late trekker (got hooked only after my 30s) and fan of DS9, your videos are for me the best ST content to dive into. This video is just one example of your talent to expand the debate it in complex and interesting ways. Thank you from Brazil, where your message has a special meaning in these days.
I know this is kind of off topic but it is important to the discussion: If the treaty went as planned, would the Cardasians have honored it? Given whet we've seen about the Cardasian culture and government I don't think so. I also don't think the Cardasians were ever a power. We didn't hear about the war until years afterwords, we heard about Romulans, and Klingons, but not Cardasians. If they were so powerful why weren't they more influential, why didn't they appear sooner (I know the real world reason but why in universe)? The Cardiasians calmed worlds that weren't theirs, went to war with the federation (probably one of a number of border wars the federation has had), the Federation could have easily crushed them but chose a more peaceful solution. A solution that the fascist Cardasian government would only see as weakness. The treaty was made by naive people in Star Fleet and the Federation. The Cardasians were probably planing for their next war with the Federation before the ink was even dry and the people on those planets would never agree to move, but the people who negotiated the treaty naively thought that you could negotiate with fascists (you can't, not even in real life, they have to be defeated) and people would just give up their land. The Maquis in this regard saved the Federation from another war. If it wasn't for the Dominion, the Maquis probably would have beaten back the Cardasians, and made their own nation, possibly beating the Cardiasians enough to expose how weak the Cardiasian empire truly was to its people possibly leading to some kind of revolt.
Hey, Steve. I love your work. Please continue. I watched this video & wanted to ask do you believe some positions could be altered when these analogies & lessons are juxtaposed, however imperfectly, onto the situation with Palenstine, Israel, & say... Jordan. Thanks.
I haven't finished the video but "it's easy to be a saint in paradise. The Maquis do not live in paradise." Is my favorite line in all of Star Trek. It punched me in the gut.
It seemed like a great storyline. The maquis as a group seemed like guerrillas with a cause all their own. However, once they joined with Dominion, the Maquis appeared to be right all along. The Cardassians routinely violated their treaties with the federation. For the federation to bend like they did for them was foolish. " An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
I think there is one fact you overlooked, though I'm not sure how or even if this changes the conclusion at all. But these people weren't forced to just leave a house they just happened to move into. They were forced to leave the planet they themselves built up. And in some cases where some of them were born and have dead family members buried. They had poured their own blood and sweat and tears into building the community in which they lived. This isn't just a house that some developer built and you bought it and moved in a few years ago. If that were the case I'd say, "Sure, I'll leave." but if I or my grandfather or father built the house I was living in and was buried in the back yard you can bet your sweet ass I'd fight to keep it. Because to do otherwise is to dishonor their sacrifices and hardship they faced in leaving everything they knew to start a new colony.
Yeah, we don't really know just how long those people had been on the planet prior to this conflict so it could have had generations of works done on it, all to ne given away by people who didn't help make the place
What I'd be afraid of is, especially given human history, if you're going to relocate me because it's expedient for you- what stops you from doing it again? And again? And again?
Steve pointed out there is a sentimental component to the whole conflict and that even with the federations resources it would still be a traumautizing experience. Iseem to remember ds9 saying that the planets had only recently been settled but its been a whole so perhaps I misremembered. For me personally though, I think my grandparents would be fine with me leaving their graves behind if staying meant living under the rule of space fascists. Yeah it would sucks not to be able to visit those Graves anymore but I think my grand parents would want me safe and happy and have a good life and wouldn't want me to risk getting myself killed over a patch of land.
Personally I don't look at them metaphorically, I always take in the actual in story circumstances. The Maquis in DS9 are sympathetic to me, but I think they eventually take things too far. Eddington's insistence Starfleet should leave them alone is undercut by him using his position to steal from Starfleet and flee, rather than just resigning and leaving. By the time they're using bio weapons to poison the atmosphere of planets, and hammering the Cardassians so hard alongside the Kingons they're driven into the arms of the Dominion, I think by then they've given up the moral high ground.
When the metaphor is this on the nose, and when it references real world events so blatantly, aren't you doing the story a disservice by ignoring the metaphor? I mean... the writers clearly chose the name, and framed the situation with purpose and intent right?
@@brennonbrunet6330 Aren't you doing the uniform a disservice with comments like that? Their name can only be taken to infer how the Maquis see themselves. Whether their label accurately describes them is something the writers clearly leave open. Apologise for abuse of the uniform. Actually, just hand your uniform back.
I think the Maquis are much more like the Yugoslav Partisans, who put much of their own civilians at risk of retribution and massacres by Nazis whenever they made any attacks. They were ruthless, famously Tito was one of the leaders.
Absolutely. Voyager had a great concept from the start with the forced integration of crewmembers who had just been fighting each other over *very significant differences in worldview (galaxyview?)* and then all of a sudden everybody was a shiny, happy family on the same ship.
Well season one everyone seemed to kind of hate eachother, definitely Torres was way more aggressive but the season one finale when Tuvok was trying to train Maquis and they wouldn't listen to him Chakotay punched that one member and was like "I can beat your ass everyday till you behave the way Maquis do disapline or you can listen to Tuvok" and this took place in the mess hall so everyone saw and probably got spread around that if you dont fall in line Chakotay will bust you up hence everyone being like 'welp i guess this is fine at leasti wont be hit anymore' 🤔 That was actually a really transformative episode for me because we see the reason why one of guys joined was because his lover was raped and killed by three Cardassians and to be honest I'd be joining too if that was the case that kind of thing destroys you inside. So yeah I get it.
Hey, I'm here! Great! Haven't seen the video yet, and I say the Maquis were fully justified. There's a challenge for you, Steve! EDIT: OK, watched the video. Still think they are the good guys (as far as possible, there are no good guys in a war), but you made interesting points as always. Thanks!
This is why Sisko's actions in "For The Uniform" were so clever, both in universe and out- the Maquis had shown that they were putting honor and sentimental attachment to land over their own interests, the peace of the quadrant, the rule of Federation law, and their own lives. Sisko created a situation wherein they had two choices- die pointlessly for an easily-replaceable home, right after they'd stolen a world from the Cardassians, or live, admitting that your favorite land isn't worth people's lives when you've got the chance to receive an identical home elsewhere at no cost.
idk man, intergenerational trauma is a thing. like you said, they settled that planet to escape this kind of thing that was happening to them on Earth. It's not even-Stevens just bc the feds offered to relocate.
One important point: All involved colonies were founded on contested ground with the obvious intent to stake a claim during an ongoing war. And all colonists knew that unless they were pathologically naive. There were playing a high-stake political land-grab game and lost, after you spun the dabo wheel it is too late to ask for your money back....
This!!!! Yes this is exactly why I’ve never cared about this plot line. Plus they’re offered resettlement and could probably just go back to earth which is a literal paradise at this time, but instead they’ve decided to stay and fight for what? Land? Sentimentality? They come off as spoiled and misguided. Like human saviors of the poor oppressed Bajorians, I’m surprised there’s never been a Bajorian voice criticizing them for taking on a conflict that really doesn’t involve them.
Yes, this is a key point. The situation with the Maquis is more like that of Quebec or New Amsterdam than that of the Native Americans. The problem with them declaring that they are just defending their homes is that the planets there homes are on were never really theirs in the first place. Honestly, the better solution would have been for both sides to evacuate their colonies and to create a buffer zone.
This is a lot like the movie Up where Carl could easily have just taken his buyout and moved elsewhere. But his house wasn't just a building. He'd had memories there with Ellie and he wasn't ready to let her go. Now does that mean that he should have taken up arms against the construction workers building the skyscrapers around him? Nope.
The people in Journey's End have to be native americans because of their sacred bond to the planet. A people with a different culture and spiritual beleif would pack up and reluctantly move. This seems like a typical oversight of westerners, sentimentality is a trite way to characterize what is an almost familial relationship with the planet in question. If someone told you to give up your family, who cannot or will not consent to this, just to end a conflict you had nothing to do with, would you do it?
This isn't a good analogy since Federation settlers colonizing planets near and in a region the Cardassians said was theirs was the entire reason for the conflict so you can't say the conflict doesn't have anything to do with those settlers. If you want to get into typical western oversights, there's assuming that setting up colonies in or next to where other people already live is a benign act
I think you made a lot of really good points about the Maquis. One question that I have is do you see the Cardassian attempts to force the colonists from their homes as a form of ethnic cleansing? If the Federation colonists were mostly humans and the Cardassian government was arming Cardassian colonists to displace the humans then maybe the Maquis have a stronger argument in favor of taking up arms. It's true that they might have the option of packing up and allowing the Federation to relocate them to some other world (that will presumably be as good as their present homes) but does that mean they should allow themselves to be victimized in the name of international peace? I'm not sure but I would love to hear what you have to say.
AFAIR, weren't there three geopolitical regions where the Maquis operated? The ceded worlds where Fed colonists were now under Cardie rule, the still-Fed worlds in the Demilitarized Zone that lost the overt protection of Starfleet and suffered guerilla raids, and the actual Federation where Maquis covert agents and traitorous officers collected materiale and intelligence to prosecute the war in the DMZ. Each has different moral implications.
I think you might have overlooked the significance of land to Indigenous American culture and why expropriation of their land was so devastating. Their ties to the lands and ecosystems they were living as part of is a fundamental aspect of their religion and culture as I understand it. Even more of a big deal than Holy Lands in religions from the old world as far as I can tell. But on the same token they also don't do agriculture in the same way, meaning their culture would have likely become incredibly connected to the planet they lived on. Plus, the Reservation system of the US forced them onto worse land and relocated them from their ancestral homes. It probably deserved more than just a footnote in this video.
Interesting assessment. The only thing I'm really convinced of is that the Maquis deserved more stories. Their anger is understandable, but it's not clear what options the Federation offered them.
But why must I move based on a war I did not create? What are the merits of this war? Why must I pay a price for something I have no direct cause or involvement in?
Have to say, I completely disagree here. The Federation colonists settled on planets decades or generations ago. As part of the treaty, the Federation seems to have voluntarily given up its claim on Cardassian colonies, but wasn't enough for the Cardassians, who demanded more. From what we can tell, it was the Cardassians who started the war in the first place, by attacking Setlik III. After the ceasefire: In 2367, Benjamin Maxwell demonstrated that the Cardassians were re-arming. In 2368, they destroyed a Federation colony (Solarion IV) and tried to frame Bajorans for it. In the case of Dorvan V (2370), Memory Alpha says: "The colonists, still insistent on staying on the planet, decide to forgo Federation citizenship and remain on the planet under the Cardassians' control. Picard confirms with them that they understand that this means they will not be eligible for assistance from the Federation or Starfleet in case of problems, which they accept. Gul Evek then indicates that, while he can't guarantee every Cardassian encounter will respect it, most should be willing to leave the colony in peace so long as they do not interfere in their affairs." Here, the Cardassians claim to be basically fine with the (now-former) Federation people staying inside their border. It's clear that the Federation has washed its hands of the matter: the colonists are now part of the Cardassian Union. Hooray. As for the other colonies, it seems like the Cardassians aren't too bothered with Federation people staying where they are, or at least the source material is a bit ambiguous on it. Anyway, it was the case that the settlers on other worlds were ostensibly allowed to stay, otherwise why would Calvin Hudson have been assigned to a colony inside the DMZ? Then what happens? Breaking news: the bloody Cardies can't be trusted. They start a campaign of overt oppression (pogroms, mass poisonings etc.) against the Federation colonists inside their own border, in order to kill them or force them to leave. The colonists are all non-Cardassian, which would make this a clear case of ethnic cleansing. I'm not sure why exactly the Maquis should care whether or not their actions would risk the peace between Cardassia and the Federation. They're not in the Federation any more. As far as they're concerned, the Federation abandoned them. They're looking out for their own interests, as a minority within the borders of the space Nazi empire that's openly trying to ethnically cleanse them. The only reason Starfleet starts fighting alongside the space Nazis is because the Cardassians are all "oh no, this might risk the treaty"... how, exactly? They're de facto Cardassian subjects in rebellion against Cardassia. It doesn't really have anything to do with the Federation any more. I think the writers were a bit inconsistent with how involved the Federation was or wasn't.
I used to say this same thing, but now-now I think ‘ending a war’ isn’t the blanket ‘greater good’ argument I once thought. Now I see it more like this: In an organization where we’ve been told that things like private property have been abolished (not the same as ‘personal property’ btw, Riker can keep his sax!), the planet that people were living on and actively using was traded away by an outside entity [they weren’t Federation colonies as far as I recall] to an enemy which are not only a stand-in for the Nazis, but in their annexation of Bajor and in their mistreatment of the Bajorans in Nazi-style work camps, they basically were the Nazis. And it was done to stop a war. After reading more about the 1930s in Europe, I now think some wars with some enemies need to be fought. Agreeing with Hitler that he can have Chekloslovakia to keep the peace is not a good move, or a moral one. Agreeing with the Cardasians that they can have these planets where people who don’t want to leave are living, is not a good or moral move. Sometimes the price of peace is too high.
You write very intelligently and powerfully, Annie. But again I disagree. Note that while the Bajorans *were* turned into slave labor, the treaty that forced some settlers to leave their planets, the Bajorans were given back their independence and freedom. Chamberlain's appeasement at Munich did not give *anyone* more freedom. It was *all* gains for Hitler. But that is not so with the treaty ending the war with Cardassia.
@@BS-vx8dg I had to go look this up bc I wasn't sure myself, but the Federation & it's treaty with the Cardasians that ended the war had nothing to do with the liberation of Bajor, except circumstantially: bc the Cardies were losing the war w the Fed'n, it meant they lacked resources which let the Bajoran Resistance get a foothold and also caused an internal schism in the Card.Empire which led them to pull out. The Federation's treaty w the settlers didn't have any stipulations about the freeing of Bajor. If it had, I might have rethought my stance, bc I agree, freeing an entire planet would be worth a small colony or two. I think even the Maquis may have agreed with that. But that isn't what happened. The Fed'n got an end to the war, and in exchange they gave away other people's homes. I hate that my optimistic, utopian ideal--the Federation--did this, but sadly, it is cannon. I feel the same way about the episode w Warf's brother wanting his people rescued instead of letting them die just bc they were pre-warp. Notably, despite their interplanetary gliders, Bajor was also pre-warp so the Fed'n likely wouldn't have interfered. (Can you tell I hate the Prime Directive?) Thanks for the good Trek conversation tho!
Somewhat ironically, Nazi-Germany lost a lot of its eastern territories after WW2 which were given to Poland. Including territories which had belonged to Germany for decades. The people who lived there were also in a way relocated to make the peace treaty happen, although it was in this case more like a punishment as well. My grandmother's family had like a day's notice to leave their homes for good. They were shoved into a cattle car and moved to West Germany by train, probably with the same train cars the Nazis used to get the jews to the termination camps. My grandmother never looked back and accepted that her home was gone for good. She visited her home town in the 1990s when she was in her 70s. The house was still there, but she never found out if the valuables were ever discovered they had hidden in a hurry before leaving.
The Maqui are victims of the Carrdassians, the Cardassians are not following the treaty. The Federation just doesn't feel comfortable confronting the Cardassians.
The relocation aspect reminded me of an early DS9 episode ("Progress") where Bajor needs to evacuate people from a moon but one guy doesn't want to leave. In that scenario, it's not about ending a war, and nobody's life is at risk, but there is still the "needs of the many" argument. If that guy was in the wrong (which the episode implied) then the DMZ colonists are also wrong. Conversely, if the colonists have the moral high ground, maybe the moon farmer did too?
There was another NG episode where Data destroyed some sort of irrigation system to make the colonists realize they had no chance of winning even though, emotionally, they had every reason to want to stay on the planet. Steve is right that the decision to make the colonists Native Americans in this episode was probably because, without that twist, the audience would have no conflict about it. Just relocate. It bites but its the best choice. However, that Native American element of the planet itself welcoming them did make a difference because, to these people, a planet is not just interchangeable with another planet. So, it's a case of "The Needs of the many..." Of course, once DS9 comes into it, it's way more than just a group of Native Americans. It's a whole lot of people who feel the Federation abandoned them.
hot take: The Federation giving land to the Cardassians is collaboration with fascists. They could have found some other way to make peace. They could have refused to make peace with the Space Nazis. Instead, they chose to sell out their own citizens to appease Nazis... and look what happened later: those Space Nazis went to war with the Federation not that long afterwards, allying with the Dominion, aka Super Space Nazis. The Federation caved to Nazis, which had predictable results, and the ST Maquis are still exactly the same freedom fighters that the original Maquis were. Also, Steve, you utterly ignored that the Maquis had strong religious/spiritual reasons not to leave their land. Planets/land aren't interchangeable, and the Federation has no right to take land away without speaking to them. Your entire line of thinking is extraordinarily lenient towards government overreach.
also, you brought up what i think is THE key word here: appease. the treaty, giving over those worlds to the Cardassians, was appeasement. and just like in the real world, it would not have worked. had the Cardassian Empire not become part of the Dominion (and subsequently fallen entirely) they would have kept expanding into Federation space, kept making more wars that require more treaties. even in-universe, the case for the Maquis is pretty damn strong.
Steve excellent job as always. If I missed it I apologize but I think the TNG episode Preemptive Strke is more on point in the proper intro to the Maquis.
You have looked at the Maquis in a way I had not considered in all these decades. Thank you. Now you have no excuse not to write a Star Trek: Maquis episode.
As every planet in Star Trek looks like the dry hillsides outside LA, I would imagine relocation would be pretty much a matter of indifference. I mean, every planet even has its own Vasquez Rocks, so they seem pretty interchangeable.
There's a larger question with Steve's appeal to the "Greater Good" argument. Who pays the price, ie Who suffers the worst consequences for the "Greater Good" decisions? History has shown us, again and again, that it inevitably the weakest and most vulnerable parts of society that pay the price of "Greater Good" decisions. Let's take a quick look at US history to see this - From the Declaration of Independence to the Civil War, Compromise after Compromise, with the goal of the "Greater Good" of "keeping the country together", enabled for the Expansion of Slavery, leaving Millions of Black people in horrible situations. Those making the "Compromises" were NOT adversely affected for the "Greater Good". And this wasn't the last time. From the "Compromise of 1876" to the Civil Rights era, even "Liberal White people" believed "reuniting the Country" was FAR more the "Greater Good " than the Civil Rights of Black people. Or look again at the build up to World War 2. In the "Munich Conference" in 1938, Britain, France, Italy and Germany decided to hand the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) over to Germany than to have a War. Again the weaker power (Czechoslovakia) who wasn't even at the Conference, was presented with a Fait Accompli, for the "Greater Good". While ethicists often laud the "Greater Good" principle, it is an ethically questionable morality because, too often, like in the case of the Planets sold out by the Federation, it is the Weakest and most vulnerable who suffer most from the decisions made for the "Greater Good". Furthermore, consider this possibility - The Federation compromised more than Humans. Imagine a scenario where in a future Federation, the Klingons, Romullans, Vulkans, Bejorans, etc decide that to prevent/end a War, Earth and many/all Human planets should be handed over to the Borg, for the "Greater Good". Would you be fine with that?!
eesh steve... Normally I agree with a lot of your stuff, but I think you are missing an important part of this conversation: That all too often relocation of a peoples IRL has been justified as a "greater good". Hell, the indigenous peoples of north America specifically were often told that displacement was "for their own good". Yes ST maquis had a free pass to be relocated, but the more important issue is that they should never have been asked to leave those planets in the first place. The galaxy is a big place, I'm sure the federation could have found other planets to cede to the Cardassians. The decision to relocate was a decision made out of expediency. It was a decision that solved the federations problems, and it was sold to the colonists, who we have to remember colonized these planets specifically to avoid this situation from their distant past, on the idea that this time it was super duper necessary and would stop a war. You may be able to see yourself being okay with that, but I for one would be mad as hell and willing to fight. Great video! Love when you dig into the right and wrong of the far future, and this topic was definitely worth thinking about today.
Here's a dark thought that crossed my mind recently. What happened to the Native American colony during the Dominion War? Presumably the Cardassians wiped them out with Dominion assistance, which... Jesus what an end to that storyline. However improbable this might be, I want to imagine that they either somehow resisted or were permitted their autonomy by the Dominion, who perhaps sympathized with their story. (But as I write it, that just seems improbable.)
Star trek legal question, given that the federation is a federation if planets, does it really have the right to give away territory without the consent of that territory? Take the US, the Union cannot give away the territory of a state without the consent of that state even if the seeding is part of a treaty.
The questionable nature of the Marquis did eventually lead to my single favorite moment in Voyager. That being Chakotay finding out that yet another person in his crew had a hidden agenda and angrily asking if anyone on his ship had actually been working for him.
I remember this was very much a thing with some groups in the UK in the 90s. Quite often, the only members were undercover agents from different organisations.
Lmaro
@@AndrewLakeUK lmfao
Chakotay: "You were working for her. She was working for them. Was anyone on that ship working for me?" 😂 Absolute gold.
@@AndrewLakeUK US too. Counterculture groups in the 60s-70s had more undercover cops than actual activists in them.
As "The needs of the many" was one of the most fundamental and famous principles of Star Trek showing the affect this can have on "the few" was one of the smartest things the franchise ever did
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner sometimes.
@@AndrewLakeUK this framing is always hilarious, because it assumes that the people are ravenous wolves rather than the sheep. It would be more accurate to say that democracy is two sheep and a wolf deciding what to have for dinner, instead of the wolf just getting to eat whatever they want.
The entire point is that the effect on "the few" as in the Marquis are negligible and their own stupidity is the only real reasons for any lasting problems.
The few can eventually become the many.
@mathewfinch 100% agree. Anyone using the "two wolves and a sheep" framing is explicitly arguing against democracy, and demonstrating their preference for minoritian rule.
Steve: “Hey you are in the hospital and can’t sleep because of sickle cell pain, how about a Trek video on a topic you have constantly debated in your head since you were 16!?” Thank you sir!❤️🙏🏾
Best wishes to you!! I recently lost a cousin to sickle cell complications. Even though we are strangers over the internet please know you are in my thoughts at this moment. All the best to you and get well soon! ✌🏽❤️
Feel better soon
Feel better soon, comrade! 🖖
Best wishes and solidarity!
Hey, man. I remember you! Get better soon, Langley.
Good vid, as usual, yet I think you forgot to include one, perhaps most important argument in your consideration - Cardassians probably never meant to uphold their part of the treaty, they kept arming themselves, preparing for war. It was a bad deal, highly disadvantageous for the Federation and it's citizens. So the Maquis... there is more merit to their cause. Also I think you underestimate the importance the homeland has for the identity of peoples. It's more that just a place where you live. It's part of who you are.
The issue with the Maquis is the initial, TNG Maquis didn’t just not want to leave because of a sense of pride. They had spiritual reasons to not want to relocate, and were also not given a choice unlike the DS9 Maquis.
This division could greatly influence a Starfleet officer’s decision on whether they would be willing to give up their career to stand up for a higher moral belief, like in the StarTrek movie.
This distinction is also what makes the DS9 maquis easier to side against, in favor of Sisko. DS9 and how the audience views Sisko’s actions would be far darker and appalling if DS9 used the TNG Maquis. Imagine if Sisko had poisoned the atmosphere of the native American colony. Yikes.
Not to mention the fact that they explicitly stated in the episode that the people of that community had search for years to find a planet that they felt they could truly call home only to be told to get off by 2 super powers who see their home only as a commodity to be traded.
In a sense, you can view the original TNG Maquis as a marginalized minority group, and the more violent DS9 Maquis as those who co-opt the legitimate issues marginalized groups have for their own purposes. Rioters during BLM protests. Companies slapping rainbows on everything for pride month.
Except they were given a choice. "Journey's End" is the episode where that detail comes from. They just weren't given a choice initially. It was only after hostages were taken, that the Cardassians relented and said the colonists could stay on what would now be a Cardassian planet (again). The Federation and Cardassian diplomats then renegotiated the terms of the treaty to extend that choice to all Federation colonists in what would soon become Cardassian Territory and the newly formed DMZ.
@@cryofpaine so what you're saying is if a Maquis descended from indigenous Americans decided to fight, they would be betraying their own people?
The thing that I think ruins Steve's argument for me is that the assumption that the homes that the Federation were to give these colonists would be “just as good” as the homes that they must abandon. I'm sure the Federation _can_ find homes that were materially equivalent - there is no doubt that that could happen. But what if the criteria isn't just material, but spiritual and religious? What if the reason to leave wasn't just stubbornness and pride, but trauma?
Like one example was Dorvan V, where the mountains and rivers welcomed the people who came there to escape persecution and to find a new home. What could the Federation say, for example, to a people who's ancestors came to a planet they call home now, died there, and their people could not feel like they could leave, because the land holds their honored dead? What if those people remember the times of persecution that other, less ethical Earth government had done to them, and when the Federation, another government, comes, promising to not do that… they refuse to believe the Federation?
What if they were, say, descendants of Holocaust survivors who have no reason to believe that the Federation wouldn't do what the Nazis did to them, i.e. promise that they were being relocated, their relatives are happy and safe, and behind that was a lie that lead to another concentration camp?
Are they wrong? Perhaps in a material sense… perhaps they are what Vulcans would say, illogical, clouded by emotion and emotional damage, and can be easily dismissed. But are they really?
Like, to me, when you start involving tropes like this, there's a certain danger of minimizing the trauma caused by actual forced relocations and genocide, that _can_ and _have_ lasted longer than those who have directly lived them. The trauma lingers through the generations, and the fact that the Federation can be so goddamn _cavalier_ about it… that in itself strikes harder to the vision of Star Trek than anything else.
Now, question: didn't the treaty not only put a number of Federation colonies under Cardassian control ... but also put a number of Cardassian colonies under Federation control? The latter never gets mentioned except for Journey's End, and possibly in The Maquis Pts. 1 & 2.
yes you are correct
The fate of those colonies was ripe for stories. Do they try to keep ties to the Cardassian worlds, which the Federation should allow, by their principles. But probably some Federation citizens dislike those ties or just think themselves a better option, so they turn on the charm and persuasion. Maybe some of the Cardassians see that as pressure, but others like the new freedom. Internal divisions form.
It's entirely possible, and I'd say likely, that the Cardassian government relocated its citizens regardless of whether they wanted it or not.
My personal thought on that was always that said Cardassians just never considered themselves part of the Federation to begin with. With how blatantly the Union would later on go with defying the terms of the treaty between themselves and the Federation, they only saw it as a temporary setback, of feigning like they cared, ignoring any Federation 'oversight' that might've happened.
The Cardassian colonists under Federation control form their own version of the Maquis called "The True Way" who we are told also commit a number of terrorist attacks against the Federation. They only get a few mentions in DS9, they try to kill First Minister Shakar and they blow up a runabout, but otherwise their story is never really explored and they disappear entirely by the time Cardassia joins the Dominion.
This makes me think about Sisko’s comment about how easy it is to be a saint in paradise.
I also saw a lot of parallels between the DMZ and the post-Viet Nam repatriations, and the post-USSR Russia/NATO agreements; the federation (the US, NATO) failed to take into account the third party that was ignored when these peace talks happened; the people who live there. On all accounts, they never asked the people who lived in those lands what they wanted, they were an afterthought.
@@K11-s1i I did not, please don’t conflate what you think I said with what I actually said.
You wouldn’t like people putting words in your mouth, don’t do it to others.
If allowing yourself to be relocated could end a war, it sounds like a simple answer to a simple trolley problem. Just move and there is peace. The problem is that ceding land to a hostile nation doesn't have a good track record of ending war. The Allies offered the Nazis land in Czechoslovakia to appease them, but as you may recall, the war was not successfully prevented. What's to stop the Cardassians from just starting another war, regardless of whether the colonists leave voluntarily?
Excellent point.
Not really relevant in a galaxy setting where we are constantly told about unsettled habitual worlds. Clearly land is not a limited factor in the star trek world. At least not for the federation. Land have value on earth because its limited and we dont have replicators that can make tools and infrastructure a triviality.
I think … according to the lore of the show … the war weakened the Cardassians to the point where the Bajorans were able to overthrow their rule on their planet with a rebel force. The treaty made sense at the time for both sides because it stopped the death, destruction and weakening of both sides. Gul Dukat lamented how far the Cardassian Empire had fallen on several occasions. To your point, when they entered into an Alliance with the Dominion, they immediately went back to warring with the Federation. No one, not even the Cardassians, could have factored in the Dominion at the time of the Treaty.
I think where the Maquis as a narrative tool fails in star trek is that it demands an understanding of the government of the federation and its workings that the shows never want to delve into. Beyond democracy being uttered we never hear about how or who those politics represent. Why were the colonists not included in the peace talks, if they were (via representation in some sort of Congress?) why were there concerns not raised, why do they lack the power in the federation government to have their local concerns addressed ahead of forced relocation... Etc. It raises a lot of questions the show as a depiction of a frictionless utopia doesn't want to deal with. Which is fine... But I think that is where the seams of the star trek world building really start to show.
With the best will in the galaxy I guess it would be difficult to construct a vast interstellar democratic federation that spans two quadrants where individual parts of that federation - especially sparsely populated colonies on the periphery - didn't feel left out of federal decision making to some degree, even if they do technically have a vote or three in some vast Federation Parliament or Congress.
@@alexwright4930 There's still scope for the Beta Quadrant to come in. Likely that Beta has the hottest women.
As someone descended from First Nations people, HARD disagree. We've seen how these treaties and concessions work out.
I don't think it was ever made explicit, but I always got the vibe that the reason the Federation was so willing to sign off on the treaty they did despite how many of their own citizens got screwed was because Starfleet wasn't confident they had the resources to win a quick decisive victory over the Cardassians if full on war broke out because of the losses at Wolf 359. A Starfleet at full strength would've been a bigger bargaining chip for the Federation to hold over the Cardassians. While the Federation likely would've won either way, a post-Wolf 359 Starfleet would've had to fight longer and thus likely would've suffered greater losses.
This is an interesting point, and has real world equivalents like the post-Viet Nam repatriations.
That makes sense as to why the Federation would negotiate such a deal. However, that doesn't explain why the colonist's governments were not included in the negotiations. That's like the US giving Texas to Mexico without even talking to the Texas government until the deal was already made.
There is also the reality they gave up nothing really. Relocating colonists that do not have an advanced industrial society is child's play in a world with replicators. Unless the planets in question had some rare resources its a simple solution that was only complicated because of suicidal colonists demanding the federation start a war over their sparsely populated farming colonies. Its not like they become destitute and lost everything if they relocated.
Wolf 359 might have made sense at one point. But any DS9 fleet battle lost just as many ships.
@@lucasbachmannProbably more. Many of the Dominion War episodes seem to portray Starfleet and allied losses in the hundreds of vessels, and tens of thousands of crew. From what I recall of Wolf 359, it was 40 ships in that fleet, hastily gathered from what ships that Starfleet could scrounge up. Taking into accounts that the Wolf 359 ships may not be been as ‘optimized’ for combat as the Dominion War era ships, then the issue is arguably even worse…
I think there's another argument to be made here, or at least one I'm sure some Maquis would make - that the Cardassians are a galactic power that must always be opposed, and that _any_ peace treaty with them is intrinsically unjust and invalid. While the war is portrayed as intractable and costly, many such Maquis clearly disagree with the careful diplomacy and difficult decisions that led to the treaty.
Yup, it's like appeasement with Nazis even, good luck with that one. Start arming your resistance culture
I know its two years late but this has always been my read on it. Peace with a fascist government is never justifiable, and given how the Maquis are able to wipe the floor with the Cardassians it seems likely the UFP would have won the war
Awesome video! Thanks, Steve!
Sometimes, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" can really suck for the few.
I can't believe it's taken 28 years, but it just occurred to me that the Federation/Cardassian treaty isn't dissimilar to the neutral zones created between the UFP and Klingon and Romulan spaces.
The DMZ in Korea is a good IRL analogue
I found that Ro provided a good outline of the reasons for the anti-cardassian insurgency, and that Eddington was overall a sympathetic figure (and a real hero). I was won over by Janeway and drawn into Voyager from the beginning by her fundamental respect and understanding of the maquis, with no condescending attitudes (which we were reminded of in Repression & Shattered). Well done!
I daresay that one of the things that I found rather telling about all of the Maquis situation was that very little was ever mentioned about how the Cardassian colonies felt or reacted to the same thing happening to them. As if they didn't have any issues finding themselves suddenly citizens of the Federation. One can assume, I suppose that those colonists who opposed it were happily given passage back to Cardassian space, but there would still be plenty left over. Just found that a rather interesting absence in that whole kerfuffle. :)
I think its safe to assume that the cardassians would have been happy to force their own people to relocate.
I always assumed there was a disbalance, that the feds offered up a lot more colonies. It does suit their style.
Also, I too assume the Cardassians have their ways to assure their relocation
@@henryburby6077 And/or a lot of the colonists would have been happy to _be_ relocated. You can't forget the generations long indoctrination to "service to the Cardassian state" and how that would shape the opinions of much of its population.
@@scaper8 Some would stay behind and serve the state too, as spies.
i always got the impression that they just didnt midn living under fed rule . yeah they would have rather stayed in the empire but remmber the inciting incident for the maquis wasnt just htat they weere undwer Kardy law now but that the Kardies promised to leave them be and then didnt . i could imagine a very similar episde as journeys end happening when a fed colony ship arrives at one of those card colonies expecting them to up and move and they dont and the feds are like "oh ok no biggy" and leave and just basically ignore them. if the Cardies haD just left the yet to be Maquis alone then everything would have been fine
I think you missed the main point of the Maquis. The Federation was built to allow all it's member planets to govern themselves for the most part. Yet, the Federation didn't even think to involve the local governments in their negotiations. The Enterprise (and likely other ships) just showed up and where like, "Hey everyone, so we just gave your planet away. Get out now." That is basically like the military showing up at your door saying, "We gave away your house. We''ll help you move to a new house, but you will have to build it yourself. Get out now." The Maquis were not just fighting the Cardassians invading their planets, but also pissed at the Federation. While not exactly taxation without representation, it as close as you can get when there are no taxes.
But it was established that the Federation Colonists were the ones in the wrong. They settled on a Cardassian world without permission. They were the invaders and responcible for the whole war from the start.
Right. And why on earth would you look on an offer of a new home favorably from the people who kicked you off the old home?
@@brettmajeske3525 I don't know where you got that idea from. In TNG episode that started the whole thing, they said these were Federation planets until the treaty gave them away. That is not the same thing an invading a planet.
@@joearnold6881 When it comes to the Federation. I think they really would give them a new home planet. Maybe even a better one. Still, kicking someone out of their home is just a shitty thing to do. No matter the why.
@@rug212001 The whole history of the war and treaty takes several episodes to be revealed. It is eventually revealed in DS9 and Voyager is that the war started because the colonists thought they were settling on unclaimed worlds, even though Cardassia had claimed those regions over a generation before. Basically the colonists only checked Federation records, and never bothered to see if non-Federation species had made claims. The Treaty removing the colonists was a recognition by the Federation that those colonists were the instigators in the first place and that Cardassia had the prior claim. In return Cardassia left planets they had seized during the war, returning everything back to the status quo.
I think that one problem the Maquis had was, ironically enough, the defectors from Starfleet. This situation, this cause, seems to have triggered an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the Fleet's hierarchy and structure. I think it could even be tied into the legendary 'evil Admiral' syndrome, which could suggest more than the Enterprise-D had to deal with these ambitious and destructive agendas. We could even tie it into Satie's corrupt inquisition. Maybe before she was turned back by Picard, some careers were impaled on her Umbridge-like rampage and it left other officers feeling alienated from a structure that tolerated her for so long. My point is, the near-mantra of 'You Have Your Orders' in that 'special' tone of voice may have been feeding a rebellion larger than the colonists' cause for a while.
You sound like someone who would be prepared to betray the uniform. That sickens me. You'll never make admiral.
Even the "Lower Decks" season 3 finale suggested that the evil Admirals we've seen in TNG, DS9 and the movies weren't isolated cases.
Captain Freeman said: "You're not one of those Admirals who are up to no good. You're better than that."
While it may seem funny on the surface, to me it shows that these evil Admirals may be symptoms of a larger problem within Starfleet's higher ranks, probably some form of corruption and competition of egos.
So I find it nice that LD acknowledges that with this single line.
ua-cam.com/video/rsEyok6poRc/v-deo.html
The issue I have is...like...the Cardassians are shown as being so horrible and fascist and awful that no longer fighting against them when you're capable of resisting seems like almost a worst crime than the relocations.
good so then you don't attack the Federation then.
Bit late to the party here, but I think the assumption that the relocation would allow them to live the same life is fraught. Not only is it clear that many of the Maquis had spiritual reasons for wanting their land, but in a post-scarcity environment like the Federation, the only thing that still has any value IS land. If the land elsewhere was good and suitable, these peoples wouldn't have had to colonize the ass end of nowhere, and the Cardassians wouldn't care about claiming these planets.
In fact, we're told this outright in Journey's End: These people left Earth 200 years ago due to it being unsuitable for their way of life and only found a suitably planet for themselves 20 years ago. Whatever they need, Dorvan V is the only known option. Chakotay's people, similarly, had been living in that region for 'centuries.' The Federation's offer to resettle them comes with a massive drop in quality of life.
With your literal interpretation of the Marquis, I agree with you, except for your view on the Natives they were trying to relocate in TNG. You said it wouldn't dilute/attempt to destroy their culture, but they specifically said they believed the planet they were on was sacred, and they were meant to be there. They had a spiritual connection to the land, and it wasn't just a home they could replace. The federation just trying to simply move them somewhere else greatly disrespects their cultural beliefs and devalues their spiritual connection to the land.
You might feel a bit differently about forced relocation if you actually had to do it. I know in Star Trek it’s a bit different because they have beaming and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of identical planets, but nonetheless, home is home.
I think the problem with trying to fit a gritty bunch of freedom fighters such as the Maquis into a show like Star Trek is that the Federation is so well established as a super squeaky clean place to live that it’s difficult to create a scenario comparable to the situation that created the original Maquis. Side note: it’s also why I struggle with the newer grittier Trek series we’ve seen of late. They feel a bit shoehorned into the squeaky clean Trek universe.
I was personally never invested in the the Maquis plotlines. Mostly for the reasons Steve highlighted, but also because I think DS9 did a much better job with the Bajoran story arch's. When compared to what the Bajorans went through during the Occupation, the Maquis motivations come off as kind of hollow
Yeah...
Honestly, I'm a little surprised very little attempt was made to tie those two plot thread together. Like, I think we saw a few former Bajorian militia joining the Maquis. Overall, however, Bajor was usually portrayed as too wrapped up in their own affairs to regard the Maquis with anything more than sympathetic condolences at best.
I can certainly understand why Bajor would be reluctant to risk another conflict with Cardasia, but seriously, for many Bajorans fighting Cardasia is all they'd ever known. I really might have expected at least a highly vocal sect to be of the opinion, _that was us not too long ago, we know all too well the horror of living under that oppression and we cannot allow ourselves to sit idly by while it happens to anyone else._
Certainly I wouldn't expect all of Bajor to rally to the cause. Pretty much the entire point of DS9 was to show that alien races aren't just monolithic planets of hats. Still it's a missed opportunity all the same that more wasn't done to tie anything together into a more cohesively interconnected storyline.
The Maquis' motivation I could understand. Did the Federation ever offer them something in payment for their being moved from their homes? Simple relocation isn't enough. The religious fanaticism and constant superstition of the Bajorans turned me off to them entirely.
I think it was a mistake for the Maquis to have been destroyed kinda unceremoniously off screen in season (5? 6?) -- i think they could have had an arc that could have had a major impact on the overall story in the war with the dominion.
Gul Dukat You might ask, should we fear joining the Dominion? And I answer you: Not in the least. We should embrace the opportunity. The Dominion recognizes us for what we are, the true leaders of the Alpha Quadrant. And now that we are joined together, equal partners in all endeavors, the only people with anything to fear will be our enemies. My oldest son's birthday is in five days. To him, and to Cardassians everywhere, I make the following pledge: By the time his birthday dawns, there will not be a single Klingon alive inside Cardassian territory. Or a single Maquis colony left within our borders. Cardassia will be made whole, all that we have lost will be ours again. And anyone who stands in our way will be destroyed. This I vow with my life's blood, for my son, for all our sons.
They could have had a role much like Kira in the final sequence of episodes, finding themselves suddenly on the same side as Damar and navigating a future where they might have to be given a place at the table in Cardassian politics.
Voyager blew it with the Maquis too
Another parallel with history is the Federation/Cardassian treaty. It's very similar to the Munich accords, where the allies gave everything to Hitler and the Nazis in order to appease them. It abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and later lead to war.
It's true, they mention several times that the treaty was a bad deal for the Federation, that they gave away too much for the sake of "peace" a peace the Cardassians clearly had no intention of honoring. It seems to me that the war must have been so politically unpopular in the Federation that they were willing to end it at any cost regardless of how it was going to hurt them down the road. The Federation essentially kowtowing to a third rate power like the Cardassians is laughable. As Quark says peace at any cost is irresponsible.
I might be able to agree with you in part if it weren't for the fact that the Cardassians violated the treaty from the start. Cardassia was in a far worse situation than the Federation at the end of the war, and a cold war was preferable to them. While they were arming and assisting their people, the Federation was imprisoning theirs. I'm sure the Federation's naivety was amusing to them.
Love this one Steve but I don't think I fully agree with you on the Maquis being much harder to justify when we interpret them literally. When I watch Trek and see the scenes about the peace treaty ceding territory, it reminds me of Neville Chamberlain getting back to Britain and declaring peace for our time. Absolutely the actions are a bad look and tarnish the image of the federation, however, I would argue that this goes beyond Starfleet hypocrisy and more to active appeasement and collaboration with a fascist state, and that's something I cannot justify even if we are putting the interests of the many over the few. We also learn that during the Dominion war, Cardassia and the Jem'Hadar went all out in hunting down and killing all Maquis in their space. And I think the Cardassian plan to make life so hard for colonists that they 'willingly' leave reads as evoking sundown towns and gentrification. The stated goal of ending a war and securing peace is certainly admirable and in the interests of everyone, however, I dont think it is ethically justifiable at any time to collaborate and appease fascists that treat Maquis members and their communities as subhuman.
Eddington's "in some ways your worse then the borg" speech and Jake's Sisko's book suggesting the marquis we romanticized suggests that quite a lot of the Marquis were people with a ill defined grudge against the federation who choose that cause just because its was well known (like thomas Riker, he wasn't one of the colonists). There more like militias and the trucker convoy people as in they declare they have a freedom and that everybody else has to pay whatever cost is needed for them to have that freedom (in the Marquis case that is for millions of die in a war so they don't have to move to an equally nice place) stick there fingers in their ears if anyone suggests there even is a price then get violent when they don't get exactly want they want.
THANK YOU. I've been saying essentially this same thing for years, but in slightly different words. I've always viewed Starfleet officers like Thomas Riker, and especially Michael Eddington, who didn't even live on those colonies as being like Fox News watchers who already have some feelings of discontentment with their government and then see their chance to go play hero and join a militia and then show up at the Capitol armed and ready to fight for some ill-defined "freedom" they claim they lost. The only difference between them and other Maquis is that some of them actually personally felt inconvenienced at one point. And because of that, they feel they have the right to threaten the fragile (turns out very fragile) peace forged in an entire quadrant of the galaxy.
@@sebastiang7394 -- Bringing the war in Ukraine into this has its limitations. For one thing, Russia and Ukraine both have declining population growth rates. This means that the Russian government _may not want_ millions of people evacuating Russian-held territory to re-settle in the rest of Ukraine after the war. Russian colonists can bring money and labour but they wouldn't know the land and its resources anywhere nearly as well as existing inhabitants.
For another, the Russian economy might be in the toilet right now, but its not operating on the principles of mercantilism in the way the Cardassian Union does. It's an oil company run by gangsters.
That's very much like what happens with peaceful protests that quickly turn violent IRL in our time. Quite often there is actually another faction at work at those protests with absolutely zero interest in the subject matter being protested - they have their own grudges and issues (or they simply like the excuse and opportunity to be violent for vioences sake) and they set out from the start to _make_ the peaceful protests turn violent. You can often rather easily tell the genuine protestors from this violent faction trying to userp "crowd mentality" because they're the ones hiding their faces, whereas the genuine peaceful ones that have honest intentions and actually _support_ the cause legitimately usually do not hide their faces.
One thing you have added to the Eddington video or this one was the fact that Sisko’s best friend had joined and ultimately died and that pain could have added to the resentment of the marquis and a transference on to Eddington. At first Sisko was more sympathetic to them. Just a thought.
I’ve often gone back and forth on them, as a group. I think you summed up why. Yes, they were in a bad situation, and perceived to be left out to dry by the Federation, but a lot of their continued struggles were by choice. They had options.
Die later being only as free as you're told to be.
Or.
Die free.
I know what I'm picking.
@@damenwhelan3236 but we're seeing this very thing play out right now all across the US (and even Canada). This one move by the government will save millions of lives and yes it's inconvenient but for the greater good of the society at large this is what we have to do. The Marquis are like the karens of that world saying nope I won't do it millions can die for all I care cuz I don't wanna.
@@sandrasnow-balvert7766, I wonder if this is more of a problem in the US. Despite Thatcher saying "there is no such thing as society", most of us understand that price of personal freedom must be paid to benefit the country. We argue about how much, and what constitutes a benifit, but we know we must do our bit. Europe even more so.
@@AndrewLakeUK There has to be a balance. The Chinese see their genocide against the Uyghur as a necessary "social" move to maintain the cultural character of the nation. Harmony by eliminating the people who are different. I'm not a libertarian, but I much prefer the American focus on the individual's rights.
@@damenwhelan3236 To die needlessly?
If the Maquis don't have enough ships to move the colonists off world, it kind of renders Kira's line in "For the Uniform" about "The Maquis have started to evacuate those planets we just gassed" kind of moot.
Steve: Love your content. Your videos bring an amazing amount of extra world-building and depth to Star Trek lore. However, I would contest (a little) your assertion that _"Journey's End"_ (S07E20) was the starting point for the Maquis. I think the roots of the Maquis (at least from the point of view of Star Fleet personnel being involved) goes back to _"The Wounded"_ (S05E12) in which Captain Benjamin Maxwell (USS Phoenix) goes rogue and starts attacking Cardassian vessels, space stations and transports.
The maqius had appeared in a 1-2 part story near the end of tng's final season that focused on ensign ro infiltrating the maqius as part of a mission
I thought so. Bad Steve.
They ran concurrently. I liked that episode though because of the Bajoran characters and them talking about food and stuff.
@@andrewanastasovski1609 ds9 started after tng ended. Outside of one or two characters that crossed over between ds9 and tng, It was ds9 and voyager that aired concurrently.
@@1987pokemaster the first two seasons of DS9 overlapped with the last two seasons of TNG.
@@1987pokemaster DS9 premiered during TNG's 6th season. They definitely ran concurrently for the last season and half or so of TNG.
Dayum....didn't know there was a real-life Marquis by the same name!!! Most awesome intro ever possible for this dude!
If my family lived on that colony for generations... I'd fight for it.
I'd be really curious to see an indigiounous/first nations perspective on this. I appreciate your take on this Steve, but do you happen to have any recomended creators with that background?
This is a good video, well done Steve. The one thing Star Trek (and most SciFi) gets wrong is that there never appears to be many emotional/cultural advancements to match the technological advancements that have been made. As said, with the way the Federation works, it's basically a paradise. For the most part you can live where you want, because of replicator technology you are never want for food, shelter or belongings, and you seem to have complete autonomy over everything you do. So if you were on one of those planets on the border, always under threat of attack during the war and someone says "Hey, so you have to leave this planet but we've got a fully stocked beachfront condo for you where the surfing is always good, plus the planet has beautiful mountains if you want to go snowboarding or hiking on the weekends and you can continue to be an artist who hasn't made a single good piece of art for a decade if you just agree to go." You'd jump on that offer in a second.
The real Maquis did what they did because they had no where else to go and literally no way to just replicate their life somewhere else. That element is completely missing in the ST universe, so it makes all episodes around those topics fall flat.
Exactly
It’s just a _little_ much to frame it like they should trust the empire that took away their rights and protections as citizens to deal fairly in giving them new, adequate homes, and that they couldn’t just take those homes away, also, whenever convenient.
The Federation threw those citizens away.
That they offered a reservation to live on which they totally promise will be just as nice as the sacred land they’d already had (supposedly as part of the federation) doesn’t make it any better.
Then, when the milquetoast “promise you’ll be nice to them” guarantee the federation got for them fell apart and they started _getting killed_ …
Idk about calling them the asshole for not fleeing their homes under violent attack to the very uncertain (possible) resettlement by their previous oppressors.
I’m just saying. They’re definitely complicated, definitely not purely “the good guys”
but the story situation, especially at the beginning of the conflict before it got more bitter, imo isn’t quite as far away from the metaphorical situation as you think.
While I feel that you do have a point and that the issue of the maquis needs to be looked at from both sides, I would like to point out that it is not easy to just pack up and leave, particularly when you have lived their for decades. Case in point, you mentioned the native Americans in Journies End. They told Picard that they spent years looking for the right planet to settle on. For them it wasn't a matter of it just being their home, they also had a spiritual connection to it. That is something that cannot be settled by a new home on another planet within the borders of the federation.
Wasn't there the twist in there that the colonists and the Maquis were aware that the Cardasians were violating the terms of the peace agreement, and Starfleet did not want to see that?
Well, Starfleet DID become aware of that, but they were so hell-bent on honoring the treaty for the sake of "peace" that they basically were willing to turn a blind-eye to the Cardassians' clear violations. Starfleet basically, and foolishly, believed that the honor system would solve everything.
Great video, as always! I will say, though, that I would like to think that Paris got it off a little easier because of his dadmiral.
At no point and time did we need to give the cardassians anything. We were beating them handely, yet the federation just rolled over to their demands.
The question many would ask, if they accept this, what about next time? Will it become a regular practice to cede my home to others anytime you uave a war? What about Cardassian concessions? Besides stopping firing at the federation and the installation of Terok Nor, what did they give up?
I think the approach to problem solving via relocation missed a couple of points. Consider the following:
Your people have relocation to a world because there's a long history of losing their homes and cultures to wars not of their choosing, colonization, and subjugation. This new world is their chance to start again. Time passes. They have ben on this new world for generations. Hope grows.
Now a war they know nothing of brews elsewhere, and without their consent or input, they are visited and told of this war, a new treaty to which they were not consulted, and are forced with the ancient problem again of losing their homes to another colonial power. This creates a reopening of that old wound; under what circumstances will they be guaranteed that any world they go to will not result in the same broken promise?
Realistically, and long term, there's zero guarantee. Any species or culture capable of interstellar travel and warfare could and might take their world again. Thus the resistance. They have one truth: they can trust each other. Such it has been. So it will be again.
The Cardassians (and Romulans) are the stand-in for fascist powers, and as such, there's absolutely zero chance they will not perform ethnic cleansing or subjugation. The approach by Star Fleet first comes off as a promise, which is then broken, followed by a display of power, followed by a further negotiation on their behalf to another stellar power. The inhabitants of this world are given the illusion of input, but we all know how this will end. Without their own independent ability to travel the stars and fight on their behalf, they are passengers in this negotiation.
This could only lead to the Maquis. This was one world of many, all whom share a story very similar to the above. And it always will, in one way or another.
Seeing this from the Star Fleet perspective, where all the information is on hand, may lead to a pragmatic and easy decision, but many of these cultures aren't privy to that information. They certainly weren't consulted. As the viewer, we are gifted that information such that we may agree with the desperation of the Star Fleet standpoint. But we're not these people on these worlds, with their shared experiences and history. We're people on a couch watching a show.
Unless you're indigenous. Like my family. Who know these stories very intimately. We'd be Maquis too. And yes, my wife would say "I'm just another asshole."
👏 👏 👏
Except when they moved to that planet, as I remember, they were told it was disputed territory. They chose it anyway.
Whoo! A Star Trek video right when I needed it. Thanks Steve!
It's hard to overstate how effective the FFI was during the war.
France gets a lot of schtick to this day, particularly from Brits, about the French surrender.
Well, if it wasn't for the English Channel, there's no way the UK could have resisted a massed blitzkrieg.
@@pantherpopel551 Not true. Open a book about the war before you spout nonsense.
"From June 1940, Britain and its Empire continued the fight alone against Germany. Churchill engaged industry, scientists and engineers to advise and support the government and the military in the prosecution of the war effort. Germany's planned invasion of the UK was averted by the Royal Air Force denying the Luftwaffe air superiority in the Battle of Britain, and by its marked inferiority in naval power. Subsequently, urban areas in Britain suffered heavy bombing during the Blitz in late 1940 and early 1941. The Royal Navy sought to blockade Germany and protect merchant ships in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Army counter-attacked in the Mediterranean and Middle East, including the North-African and East-African campaigns, and in the Balkans.
The United Kingdom and allied countries signed the Declaration of St James's Palace in June 1941 committing to no separate peace with Germany and setting out principles to serve as the basis of a future peace. Churchill agreed an alliance with the Soviet Union in July and began sending supplies to the USSR. By August, Churchill and American President Franklin Roosevelt had drafted the Atlantic Charter to define goals for the post-war world. In December, the Empire of Japan attacked British and American holdings with near-simultaneous offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific including an attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor. Britain and America declared war on Japan, opening the Pacific War. The Grand Alliance of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union was formed and Britain and America agreed a Europe first grand strategy for the war. The Declaration by United Nations drafted by Roosevelt and Churchill in Washington in December 1941 formalised the Allies of World War II. The UK and her Allies suffered many disastrous defeats in the Asia-Pacific war during the first six months of 1942.
There were eventual hard-fought victories in 1943 in the North-African campaign, led by General Bernard Montgomery, and in the subsequent Italian campaign. British forces played major roles in the production of Ultra signals intelligence, the strategic bombing of Germany, and the Normandy landings of June 1944. The liberation of Europe followed on 8 May 1945, achieved with the Soviet Union, the United States and other Allied countries. The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest continuous military campaign of the War."
@@pantherpopel551
I wouldn't have gone that far. The Battle Of Britain put the Luftwaffe into a position that they couldn't recover from. After that point, a German victory was all but impossible.
The British couldn't beat Germany on the ground, but Germany couldn't have survived for too long until it suffocated under embargoes. The Royal Navy's Home Fleet alone was more than four times more powerful than the entire Kreigsmarine.
You are very much right about that. Its rather tiresome. But that doesn't mean that the maquis were effective/impactful irl.
That said its total doesn't matter how effective they were, they still fought back.
Absolutely agree. As someone who studied the fall of France in 1940 at university, I do get very tired of lazy "French Cowardice" arguments form people who really don't know what they're talking about. As you say, were it not for the English channel, the UK would have been equally (or I would argue much more screwed) as France.
However I do think there is also a slight over statement of the effectiveness of the FFI (the De Gaulle sponored resistance), especially when linked to post war Gaullist propaganda seeking to restore Nationalist spirit in France. Veterans of May 1940 (many of whom had spent the rest of the war in German forced labour), were ignored post war due to being an uncomfortable reminder of the defeat.
The impact of the FFI was mixed and regional. In Southern/Vichy France where there was much less German Army presence, resistance under the banner of FFI played a large role in liberating the region in concern with the Allied landings in the south of France. Similarly across France there were indeed many valuable acts of sabotage and intelligence fathering done by Marquis and FFI fighters often in collaboration with SOE. They certainly made a difference.
However at he same time, much of the more aggressive and arguably significant acts were done by more left wing groups, many linked to the CP or the Spanish Republican cause. Things like assassinations of senior germans, acts of sabotage, and out right fighting after the allied invasion. Groups such as the Communist backed FTP, or the famous Manouchian Group (part of the international section of FTP). In some regions they were the only resistance active for large period of the occupation. Yet in popular history their role is often down played, or their narrative given to the FFI by a conservative post war government keen to down play the role of the left and over embellish it's own part.
So basically I would agree the role of the resistance in France is hard to overstate, but with a very heavy caveat that FFI and Marquis are not interchangeable terms, and when crediting the FFI with the actions of the "French resistance" then there may well be examples of overstatement.
One other thing I find a little irritating is the role the French resistance play in our recollection of the Second World War, perhaps at the expense of other resistance and partisan movements. Again the culprit here is often post war Gaullist propaganda, but also with a fairly heavy dose of romance associated with French culture and fictional portrayals. The French resistance make better and more glamorous protagonists for films and other media as a result of France being such a cultural and fashion leader, than perhaps the Belgian or Yugoslav resistance.
So while France gets a good deal of not undeserved attention, I always feel that it comes somewhat at the expense of other regions resistance movements. In Yugoslavia Tito's partisans fought an all out war against German occupation and essentially liberated themselves. In Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, partisan bands (some of which were Jewish) fought a war of sabotage and ambush, that involved thousands upon thousands of fighters. In Italy the Garibaldi brigades of the CP, amongst others, essentially liberated the North after the German occupation.
In Norway resistance helped destroy and disrupt the Nazi Nuclear program, and Norway itself tied up a higher proportion of occupying troops than any other occupied country. In the Netherlands and Belgium well organised resistance aided escaping Jews, sabotaged the German war effort and gave the allies vital intelligence. In Warsaw in 1944 the Polish Home Army rose up and took over the city, before fighting a long a bloody battle against the Germans, which sadly ended in defeat. And even in France many other nationalities fought the Germans, amongst them Poles, Eastern European Jews, Muslims. When Paris was liberated in August 1944 by LeClercs 2 Armoured division, at the head of the French column entering Paris was a battalion of
Spanish republicans (many of them Anarchists) who had fled their country in 1939 and continued to fight fascism ever since.
So I guess in conclusion, I totally agree with you. But I also always feel like it's worth mentioning that France still gets more than perhaps it's fair share of attention in terms of Second World War resistance. Thus I always feel obliged to also give some credit to the many other nationalities and regions that fought back during that period.
@@pantherpopel551 except for in North Africa, Malta, Crete and Greece... I guess they weren't doing much
11:16 If I were to be relocated in order to end a devastating war, I think I could live with it. Because I can live with it... I can live with it.
"Federation society isn't quite the Utopia it's usually depicted as."
When people point out things like this in Star Trek as some form of evidence that the Federation isn't a Utopia, I feel they are completely missing the point of Star Trek. The universe is NOT a Utopia. Star Trek is about HUMANITY rising to our better nature and coming together to help one another. And while we have eliminated poverty and a whole bunch of other problems there are still many external threats that need to be addressed.
People in Star Trek seek social currency rather than monetary currency. With money no longer being needed to maintain ones daily life people are free to pursue their passions. For people in Star Fleet, since that's our perspective into the Universe, it's a life of service be it to exploration, medicine, engineering, command, and etc. In DS9 we see Jake becomes a "reporter" though he's probably more akin to a Blogger in todays terms. Just look at all the people who create great content on UA-cam, Or in gaming who create massive mods for no charge, or Open Source software that contributes to tons of people for no pay.
Basically Star Trek is like one massive Open Source society were people give their time because it's something they enjoy rather than because they need money to survive. People don't need money, they need what you can buy with money like food. People's obsession with money has skewed their perspective on how the world really works. During the video you comment on how money doesn't exist so relocation cost don't matter. But this is a very narrow view I hear all the time with people pushing programs saying that cost shouldn't matter because something is morally the right thing to do.
The thing is though when economist talk about "Cost" they don't really mean money like an accountant does. Cost is a bunch of things like opportunity cost on what you could be doing during that time instead, such as a ship relocating those people couldn't be doing any number of other things. There is also resource cost like there are some Techs people wanna promote as being moral correct but ignore the fact that they require rare materials that we just have enough of to scale up to the point where it would actually work and printing more "money" isn't gonna change that, it's like all the worlds money it's gonna buy you a mountain of Gold as tall as Everest because there just isn't enough Gold. This is the resource cost as we live in a universe where resources are limited so using them for one thing means you don't have them for something else.
The final cost I'm going to go over is energy cost. As technology has improved we have gotten better forms of energy which allow us to free ourselves from much of the manual labor on the past. This more than anything is what has shaped society as with cheaper energy it makes the other two cost lower. The industrial revolution brought about massive changes to energy which allowed us to harness new forms of energy so ships powered by steam could cross the ocean in days to weeks rather than months allowing for great reduction in time cost of people's lives on travel. It also allowed for faster resource gathering which created an abundance of resources not seen before in all fields be in farming, mining, and etc.
The future is Fusion, it's why so many people talk about if we can master fusion we will become a post scarcity society, much like Star Trek. With massive abundant cheap energy that doesn't need to sun to shine or wind to blow and can operate in hostile regions, like deep space where the further you are from the sun the less power solar panels get, you can setup mining outpost to help with those resource cost. It's estimated one gold rich asteroid could potentially yield more gold than has been mined in all of human history, and odds are such ships/outpost will be Fusion powered. And to power these reactor they need Helium-3 which is abundant on the moon. I forgot the exact estimates but it's something like one small shipment of HE3 could potentially provide enough HE3 to power the planet for a year, though as we don't have a working power planet yet it's mostly speculation on how efficient it would be. But regardless of the exact numbers space is the next major gold rush and it's why so many countries have a renewed interest in space.
I disagree with your conclusion on the in setting read here and I think it comes down to our estimation of Cardassian strength. Given that in setting the cardassian border wars with the federation where so unimpactful that they could be ignored while still ongoing in the early seasons of TNG and that the klingons where able to conquer them in only a couple of weeks, *less then a month*! I would not make the moral calculus that the ceiding of the Maquis planets and the attempted forced relocation was superior to defending them even if it provoked a longer/larger war. I'm aware that those two setting elements where mainly dictated by out of universe writing considerations but the result is that the cardassians seem to be unable to meaningfully pose a threat to the federation without the Dominions help. Or at the very most where a paper tiger that looked far more threatening then they were.
Haha, marquis means shrubbery.
"I demand a shrubbery - go tell Dukat!"
"I can't"
"why not?"
"He stepped out to duke at that shrubbery"
Something else that bugs me a lot about this contrived situation is that they mention there are also a load of Cardassians living on planets that will now belong to the Federation.
It doesn't really take King Solomon to think "How about if the Federation and Cardassian Union just swap who owns those planets, then?"
they did swap those planets but the people did not want to leave them. So original they were Cardassians planets then became Federation Planets and vice versa
Two reasons:
1: They did swap as part of the peace process. Probably because of...
2: There were probably enclaves. Would the Cardassians allow the federation to enter their territory to get to a planet and vice versa?
the cardassians purposefully asked for the planets that would cause the Feds the most trouble as they didnt see the treaty as a long term deal they were just using it as an excuse toi gear up for round 2
You know what I never really understood about the whole treaty was just why the Federation signed it in the first place. Honestly it would be like the USA or Russia signing a treaty giving away land to Thailand. The Cardassian Union was a regional power at best, by all rights the Federation should have been able to stomp them, the only reason they didn't was a lack of conviction, a 'peace at any cost' mentality that was present politically.
If I had my home given away by my government to a nation that was no real threat militarily I'd be pretty pissed as well.
On that subject it would have been interesting to see if there was any legal remedy that the colonists could have taken against the Federation government giving up their worlds. Then again I suppose the Core Worlds like Earth, Vulcan, etc. with their billions of people would be like "err a few million people are bitching? screw 'em, I don't want war."
An imperfect metaphor came to mind as you were ending this comparing it to a different type of relocation. Not relocation because of an invading force but because of nature. There are many places right now that are increasingly at risk of regular and serious flooding and different governments have tried to do different things to encourage people to move some place that is not at risk of washing into the sea or getting swept away by a river every few years. Some of these plans have been better and some have been worse but there are some people who, for a variety of reasons, are interested in no offer no matter how good it is because in a certain sense you can't replace a home. You can build a new one, but it isn't a 1 for 1 trade. However, governments then have to decide what amount of support they are able and willing to provide people who refuse to leave and have to deal with the bad situation that they choose to stay in and if/when the government does not come to there aid they unsurprisingly feel betrayed.
And yes there is a big difference between a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with (and is in part the result of our own choices) and a fascist government claiming territory and choosing to treat its inhabitants poorly but most of that is in the morality what is doing the destruction as opposed to the options of the people who have to react to it. And yes there are also many star trek episodes (and a movie) that are literally about moving people away from actual natural disasters/similar phenomenon.
Part of the problem with the proposed forced relocation of Dorvan V was that what the Federation was doing to those Native American colonists was the same kind of behavior that previous polities have done to the Native Americans - the dismissal of spiritual and cultural beliefs over political and economic expedience, couched in the language of secular enlightenment.
Ironically, TNG's depiction of how the Federation behaves towards those that would become the Maquis strike deeper into the vision of Roddenberry's Federation than what DS9 tried. Here are the consequences of a polity that sees itself as enlightened, so enlightened that it can bulldoze the beliefs and practices of its subject peoples, who are _very clearly_ subject peoples _beneath_ the consideration of the enlightened metropole that agreed to this settlement, that the only time they are given a say is when they are given the marching orders to GTFO by someone who is not even at the highest levels of their government, a government that, nominally, they have a say in.
The ironic part is that DS9 _already_ had aspects of questioning the secular enlightenment ideals of the Federation with Sisko's elevation into Prophet-hood. The only difference being, of course, that the Prophets are “real” space beings with Deus Ex Machina-esque powers that the Federation cannot automatically dismiss and steamroller over. Power does, it appears, come from the barrel of a gun.
Yea religious arguments have no place in politics. Spoiler alert. Faith never feed and clothed people. At best it just made people better able to handle suffering. And at worst it leads to masses of humans wanting to exterminate others. So no more of that pls.
The Maquis story line was very good.... then pissed on and ended with a throw away line in Voyager. "Hey Torres, remember Ted and them when we rolled with the Maquis? Yeah they dead." - Chakotay.
I think there's an element missing in this story- many who joined the Maquis were former Bajoran resistance fighters, who have a very justified bone to pick with the Cardis.
As a late trekker (got hooked only after my 30s) and fan of DS9, your videos are for me the best ST content to dive into. This video is just one example of your talent to expand the debate it in complex and interesting ways. Thank you from Brazil, where your message has a special meaning in these days.
I know this is kind of off topic but it is important to the discussion: If the treaty went as planned, would the Cardasians have honored it? Given whet we've seen about the Cardasian culture and government I don't think so. I also don't think the Cardasians were ever a power. We didn't hear about the war until years afterwords, we heard about Romulans, and Klingons, but not Cardasians. If they were so powerful why weren't they more influential, why didn't they appear sooner (I know the real world reason but why in universe)? The Cardiasians calmed worlds that weren't theirs, went to war with the federation (probably one of a number of border wars the federation has had), the Federation could have easily crushed them but chose a more peaceful solution. A solution that the fascist Cardasian government would only see as weakness.
The treaty was made by naive people in Star Fleet and the Federation. The Cardasians were probably planing for their next war with the Federation before the ink was even dry and the people on those planets would never agree to move, but the people who negotiated the treaty naively thought that you could negotiate with fascists (you can't, not even in real life, they have to be defeated) and people would just give up their land. The Maquis in this regard saved the Federation from another war. If it wasn't for the Dominion, the Maquis probably would have beaten back the Cardasians, and made their own nation, possibly beating the Cardiasians enough to expose how weak the Cardiasian empire truly was to its people possibly leading to some kind of revolt.
Hey, Steve. I love your work. Please continue.
I watched this video & wanted to ask do you believe some positions could be altered when these analogies & lessons are juxtaposed, however imperfectly, onto the situation with Palenstine, Israel, & say... Jordan.
Thanks.
8:04 This mentioned when Sisto talks to himself/Kira he say that Earth is paradise but the Maquis don’t live in paradise.
I haven't finished the video but "it's easy to be a saint in paradise. The Maquis do not live in paradise." Is my favorite line in all of Star Trek. It punched me in the gut.
It seemed like a great storyline. The maquis as a group seemed like guerrillas with a cause all their own. However, once they joined with Dominion, the Maquis appeared to be right all along.
The Cardassians routinely violated their treaties with the federation. For the federation to bend like they did for them was foolish. "
An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
I think there is one fact you overlooked, though I'm not sure how or even if this changes the conclusion at all. But these people weren't forced to just leave a house they just happened to move into. They were forced to leave the planet they themselves built up. And in some cases where some of them were born and have dead family members buried. They had poured their own blood and sweat and tears into building the community in which they lived. This isn't just a house that some developer built and you bought it and moved in a few years ago. If that were the case I'd say, "Sure, I'll leave." but if I or my grandfather or father built the house I was living in and was buried in the back yard you can bet your sweet ass I'd fight to keep it. Because to do otherwise is to dishonor their sacrifices and hardship they faced in leaving everything they knew to start a new colony.
Yeah, we don't really know just how long those people had been on the planet prior to this conflict so it could have had generations of works done on it, all to ne given away by people who didn't help make the place
What I'd be afraid of is, especially given human history, if you're going to relocate me because it's expedient for you- what stops you from doing it again? And again? And again?
Steve pointed out there is a sentimental component to the whole conflict and that even with the federations resources it would still be a traumautizing experience. Iseem to remember ds9 saying that the planets had only recently been settled but its been a whole so perhaps I misremembered. For me personally though, I think my grandparents would be fine with me leaving their graves behind if staying meant living under the rule of space fascists. Yeah it would sucks not to be able to visit those Graves anymore but I think my grand parents would want me safe and happy and have a good life and wouldn't want me to risk getting myself killed over a patch of land.
I'm a Wompanoag Native American and the episode journeys end was difficult to watch knowing starfleet wasn't the force for good they pretended to be
Sounds like the history of AMERICA to me.
@@powerbad696I mean the Federation is literally America in space from the beginning so..
Steve you make 1 of the best shows on ANY MEDIA. Thanks buddy.
You made it sound like the war was some kind of natural disaster that cannot be stopped, unless starfleet give up the colony.
Personally I don't look at them metaphorically, I always take in the actual in story circumstances.
The Maquis in DS9 are sympathetic to me, but I think they eventually take things too far. Eddington's insistence Starfleet should leave them alone is undercut by him using his position to steal from Starfleet and flee, rather than just resigning and leaving. By the time they're using bio weapons to poison the atmosphere of planets, and hammering the Cardassians so hard alongside the Kingons they're driven into the arms of the Dominion, I think by then they've given up the moral high ground.
@ger du so... genocide? you want the federation to commit genocide? or should they only kill the "bad cardassians". SMH.
When the metaphor is this on the nose, and when it references real world events so blatantly, aren't you doing the story a disservice by ignoring the metaphor? I mean... the writers clearly chose the name, and framed the situation with purpose and intent right?
@@brennonbrunet6330 Aren't you doing the uniform a disservice with comments like that? Their name can only be taken to infer how the Maquis see themselves. Whether their label accurately describes them is something the writers clearly leave open. Apologise for abuse of the uniform. Actually, just hand your uniform back.
I think the Maquis are much more like the Yugoslav Partisans, who put much of their own civilians at risk of retribution and massacres by Nazis whenever they made any attacks. They were ruthless, famously Tito was one of the leaders.
0:15 the guy walking in from the left looks like Ulrich Wickert.
Oh completely and totally! I feel my biggest letdown from voyager was how their Maquis crewmembers cause relatively minor conflict, aside from Seska.
Absolutely. Voyager had a great concept from the start with the forced integration of crewmembers who had just been fighting each other over *very significant differences in worldview (galaxyview?)* and then all of a sudden everybody was a shiny, happy family on the same ship.
And that's Seska who is not maquis at all, just another Cardassian spy!
Well season one everyone seemed to kind of hate eachother, definitely Torres was way more aggressive but the season one finale when Tuvok was trying to train Maquis and they wouldn't listen to him Chakotay punched that one member and was like "I can beat your ass everyday till you behave the way Maquis do disapline or you can listen to Tuvok" and this took place in the mess hall so everyone saw and probably got spread around that if you dont fall in line Chakotay will bust you up hence everyone being like 'welp i guess this is fine at leasti wont be hit anymore' 🤔 That was actually a really transformative episode for me because we see the reason why one of guys joined was because his lover was raped and killed by three Cardassians and to be honest I'd be joining too if that was the case that kind of thing destroys you inside. So yeah I get it.
@@elenapederson1862 The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Hey, I'm here! Great!
Haven't seen the video yet, and I say the Maquis were fully justified. There's a challenge for you, Steve!
EDIT: OK, watched the video. Still think they are the good guys (as far as possible, there are no good guys in a war), but you made interesting points as always. Thanks!
This is why Sisko's actions in "For The Uniform" were so clever, both in universe and out- the Maquis had shown that they were putting honor and sentimental attachment to land over their own interests, the peace of the quadrant, the rule of Federation law, and their own lives. Sisko created a situation wherein they had two choices- die pointlessly for an easily-replaceable home, right after they'd stolen a world from the Cardassians, or live, admitting that your favorite land isn't worth people's lives when you've got the chance to receive an identical home elsewhere at no cost.
idk man, intergenerational trauma is a thing. like you said, they settled that planet to escape this kind of thing that was happening to them on Earth. It's not even-Stevens just bc the feds offered to relocate.
One important point: All involved colonies were founded on contested ground with the obvious intent to stake a claim during an ongoing war. And all colonists knew that unless they were pathologically naive.
There were playing a high-stake political land-grab game and lost, after you spun the dabo wheel it is too late to ask for your money back....
Which is why the TNG episode had Native Americans. If it was a bunch of prospectors, there would be little sympathy.
This!!!! Yes this is exactly why I’ve never cared about this plot line. Plus they’re offered resettlement and could probably just go back to earth which is a literal paradise at this time, but instead they’ve decided to stay and fight for what? Land? Sentimentality? They come off as spoiled and misguided. Like human saviors of the poor oppressed Bajorians, I’m surprised there’s never been a Bajorian voice criticizing them for taking on a conflict that really doesn’t involve them.
I thought they were there before the war.
The war was over them being there in land Cardassia wanted, but had not settled.
Am I misremembering?
@@joearnold6881 The colonization was before the war, but the planets were claimed by the Cardassians.
Yes, this is a key point. The situation with the Maquis is more like that of Quebec or New Amsterdam than that of the Native Americans. The problem with them declaring that they are just defending their homes is that the planets there homes are on were never really theirs in the first place.
Honestly, the better solution would have been for both sides to evacuate their colonies and to create a buffer zone.
That was (for me) your second best video yet, I really enjoyed it!
With out the maquis Voyager would not have ended up in the Delta quadrant.
This is a lot like the movie Up where Carl could easily have just taken his buyout and moved elsewhere. But his house wasn't just a building. He'd had memories there with Ellie and he wasn't ready to let her go. Now does that mean that he should have taken up arms against the construction workers building the skyscrapers around him? Nope.
The people in Journey's End have to be native americans because of their sacred bond to the planet. A people with a different culture and spiritual beleif would pack up and reluctantly move. This seems like a typical oversight of westerners, sentimentality is a trite way to characterize what is an almost familial relationship with the planet in question. If someone told you to give up your family, who cannot or will not consent to this, just to end a conflict you had nothing to do with, would you do it?
This isn't a good analogy since Federation settlers colonizing planets near and in a region the Cardassians said was theirs was the entire reason for the conflict so you can't say the conflict doesn't have anything to do with those settlers. If you want to get into typical western oversights, there's assuming that setting up colonies in or next to where other people already live is a benign act
I think you made a lot of really good points about the Maquis. One question that I have is do you see the Cardassian attempts to force the colonists from their homes as a form of ethnic cleansing? If the Federation colonists were mostly humans and the Cardassian government was arming Cardassian colonists to displace the humans then maybe the Maquis have a stronger argument in favor of taking up arms. It's true that they might have the option of packing up and allowing the Federation to relocate them to some other world (that will presumably be as good as their present homes) but does that mean they should allow themselves to be victimized in the name of international peace? I'm not sure but I would love to hear what you have to say.
AFAIR, weren't there three geopolitical regions where the Maquis operated? The ceded worlds where Fed colonists were now under Cardie rule, the still-Fed worlds in the Demilitarized Zone that lost the overt protection of Starfleet and suffered guerilla raids, and the actual Federation where Maquis covert agents and traitorous officers collected materiale and intelligence to prosecute the war in the DMZ.
Each has different moral implications.
Steve and I “ehh’d” at the same time. I love it.
I think you might have overlooked the significance of land to Indigenous American culture and why expropriation of their land was so devastating. Their ties to the lands and ecosystems they were living as part of is a fundamental aspect of their religion and culture as I understand it. Even more of a big deal than Holy Lands in religions from the old world as far as I can tell. But on the same token they also don't do agriculture in the same way, meaning their culture would have likely become incredibly connected to the planet they lived on. Plus, the Reservation system of the US forced them onto worse land and relocated them from their ancestral homes. It probably deserved more than just a footnote in this video.
Interesting assessment. The only thing I'm really convinced of is that the Maquis deserved more stories. Their anger is understandable, but it's not clear what options the Federation offered them.
Can confirm, New Zealand is lovely.
But why must I move based on a war I did not create? What are the merits of this war? Why must I pay a price for something I have no direct cause or involvement in?
Have to say, I completely disagree here. The Federation colonists settled on planets decades or generations ago. As part of the treaty, the Federation seems to have voluntarily given up its claim on Cardassian colonies, but wasn't enough for the Cardassians, who demanded more. From what we can tell, it was the Cardassians who started the war in the first place, by attacking Setlik III.
After the ceasefire:
In 2367, Benjamin Maxwell demonstrated that the Cardassians were re-arming.
In 2368, they destroyed a Federation colony (Solarion IV) and tried to frame Bajorans for it.
In the case of Dorvan V (2370), Memory Alpha says:
"The colonists, still insistent on staying on the planet, decide to forgo Federation citizenship and remain on the planet under the Cardassians' control. Picard confirms with them that they understand that this means they will not be eligible for assistance from the Federation or Starfleet in case of problems, which they accept. Gul Evek then indicates that, while he can't guarantee every Cardassian encounter will respect it, most should be willing to leave the colony in peace so long as they do not interfere in their affairs."
Here, the Cardassians claim to be basically fine with the (now-former) Federation people staying inside their border. It's clear that the Federation has washed its hands of the matter: the colonists are now part of the Cardassian Union. Hooray. As for the other colonies, it seems like the Cardassians aren't too bothered with Federation people staying where they are, or at least the source material is a bit ambiguous on it. Anyway, it was the case that the settlers on other worlds were ostensibly allowed to stay, otherwise why would Calvin Hudson have been assigned to a colony inside the DMZ?
Then what happens? Breaking news: the bloody Cardies can't be trusted. They start a campaign of overt oppression (pogroms, mass poisonings etc.) against the Federation colonists inside their own border, in order to kill them or force them to leave. The colonists are all non-Cardassian, which would make this a clear case of ethnic cleansing.
I'm not sure why exactly the Maquis should care whether or not their actions would risk the peace between Cardassia and the Federation. They're not in the Federation any more. As far as they're concerned, the Federation abandoned them. They're looking out for their own interests, as a minority within the borders of the space Nazi empire that's openly trying to ethnically cleanse them. The only reason Starfleet starts fighting alongside the space Nazis is because the Cardassians are all "oh no, this might risk the treaty"... how, exactly? They're de facto Cardassian subjects in rebellion against Cardassia. It doesn't really have anything to do with the Federation any more.
I think the writers were a bit inconsistent with how involved the Federation was or wasn't.
You kind of forgot the flipside of the colony concession.. some cardassian border colonies, eventually became federation ones
I used to say this same thing, but now-now I think ‘ending a war’ isn’t the blanket ‘greater good’ argument I once thought. Now I see it more like this: In an organization where we’ve been told that things like private property have been abolished (not the same as ‘personal property’ btw, Riker can keep his sax!), the planet that people were living on and actively using was traded away by an outside entity [they weren’t Federation colonies as far as I recall] to an enemy which are not only a stand-in for the Nazis, but in their annexation of Bajor and in their mistreatment of the Bajorans in Nazi-style work camps, they basically were the Nazis. And it was done to stop a war. After reading more about the 1930s in Europe, I now think some wars with some enemies need to be fought. Agreeing with Hitler that he can have Chekloslovakia to keep the peace is not a good move, or a moral one. Agreeing with the Cardasians that they can have these planets where people who don’t want to leave are living, is not a good or moral move. Sometimes the price of peace is too high.
You write very intelligently and powerfully, Annie. But again I disagree. Note that while the Bajorans *were* turned into slave labor, the treaty that forced some settlers to leave their planets, the Bajorans were given back their independence and freedom. Chamberlain's appeasement at Munich did not give *anyone* more freedom. It was *all* gains for Hitler. But that is not so with the treaty ending the war with Cardassia.
@@BS-vx8dg I had to go look this up bc I wasn't sure myself, but the Federation & it's treaty with the Cardasians that ended the war had nothing to do with the liberation of Bajor, except circumstantially: bc the Cardies were losing the war w the Fed'n, it meant they lacked resources which let the Bajoran Resistance get a foothold and also caused an internal schism in the Card.Empire which led them to pull out. The Federation's treaty w the settlers didn't have any stipulations about the freeing of Bajor. If it had, I might have rethought my stance, bc I agree, freeing an entire planet would be worth a small colony or two. I think even the Maquis may have agreed with that. But that isn't what happened. The Fed'n got an end to the war, and in exchange they gave away other people's homes. I hate that my optimistic, utopian ideal--the Federation--did this, but sadly, it is cannon. I feel the same way about the episode w Warf's brother wanting his people rescued instead of letting them die just bc they were pre-warp. Notably, despite their interplanetary gliders, Bajor was also pre-warp so the Fed'n likely wouldn't have interfered. (Can you tell I hate the Prime Directive?) Thanks for the good Trek conversation tho!
Somewhat ironically, Nazi-Germany lost a lot of its eastern territories after WW2 which were given to Poland. Including territories which had belonged to Germany for decades. The people who lived there were also in a way relocated to make the peace treaty happen, although it was in this case more like a punishment as well. My grandmother's family had like a day's notice to leave their homes for good. They were shoved into a cattle car and moved to West Germany by train, probably with the same train cars the Nazis used to get the jews to the termination camps.
My grandmother never looked back and accepted that her home was gone for good. She visited her home town in the 1990s when she was in her 70s. The house was still there, but she never found out if the valuables were ever discovered they had hidden in a hurry before leaving.
The Maqui are victims of the Carrdassians, the Cardassians are not following the treaty. The Federation just doesn't feel comfortable confronting the Cardassians.
The relocation aspect reminded me of an early DS9 episode ("Progress") where Bajor needs to evacuate people from a moon but one guy doesn't want to leave. In that scenario, it's not about ending a war, and nobody's life is at risk, but there is still the "needs of the many" argument. If that guy was in the wrong (which the episode implied) then the DMZ colonists are also wrong. Conversely, if the colonists have the moral high ground, maybe the moon farmer did too?
There was another NG episode where Data destroyed some sort of irrigation system to make the colonists realize they had no chance of winning even though, emotionally, they had every reason to want to stay on the planet. Steve is right that the decision to make the colonists Native Americans in this episode was probably because, without that twist, the audience would have no conflict about it. Just relocate. It bites but its the best choice. However, that Native American element of the planet itself welcoming them did make a difference because, to these people, a planet is not just interchangeable with another planet. So, it's a case of "The Needs of the many..." Of course, once DS9 comes into it, it's way more than just a group of Native Americans. It's a whole lot of people who feel the Federation abandoned them.
hot take: The Federation giving land to the Cardassians is collaboration with fascists. They could have found some other way to make peace. They could have refused to make peace with the Space Nazis. Instead, they chose to sell out their own citizens to appease Nazis... and look what happened later: those Space Nazis went to war with the Federation not that long afterwards, allying with the Dominion, aka Super Space Nazis.
The Federation caved to Nazis, which had predictable results, and the ST Maquis are still exactly the same freedom fighters that the original Maquis were.
Also, Steve, you utterly ignored that the Maquis had strong religious/spiritual reasons not to leave their land. Planets/land aren't interchangeable, and the Federation has no right to take land away without speaking to them. Your entire line of thinking is extraordinarily lenient towards government overreach.
also, you brought up what i think is THE key word here: appease. the treaty, giving over those worlds to the Cardassians, was appeasement. and just like in the real world, it would not have worked. had the Cardassian Empire not become part of the Dominion (and subsequently fallen entirely) they would have kept expanding into Federation space, kept making more wars that require more treaties. even in-universe, the case for the Maquis is pretty damn strong.
Steve excellent job as always. If I missed it I apologize but I think the TNG episode Preemptive Strke is more on point in the proper intro to the Maquis.
I used to loved to hate Admiral Nechayev back during the Maquis story arc! lol
You have looked at the Maquis in a way I had not considered in all these decades. Thank you. Now you have no excuse not to write a Star Trek: Maquis episode.
As every planet in Star Trek looks like the dry hillsides outside LA, I would imagine relocation would be pretty much a matter of indifference. I mean, every planet even has its own Vasquez Rocks, so they seem pretty interchangeable.
There's a larger question with Steve's appeal to the "Greater Good" argument.
Who pays the price, ie Who suffers the worst consequences for the "Greater Good" decisions?
History has shown us, again and again, that it inevitably the weakest and most vulnerable parts of society that pay the price of "Greater Good" decisions.
Let's take a quick look at US history to see this - From the Declaration of Independence to the Civil War, Compromise after Compromise, with the goal of the "Greater Good" of "keeping the country together", enabled for the Expansion of Slavery, leaving Millions of Black people in horrible situations. Those making the "Compromises" were NOT adversely affected for the "Greater Good".
And this wasn't the last time. From the "Compromise of 1876" to the Civil Rights era, even "Liberal White people" believed "reuniting the Country" was FAR more the "Greater Good " than the Civil Rights of Black people.
Or look again at the build up to World War 2. In the "Munich Conference" in 1938, Britain, France, Italy and Germany decided to hand the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) over to Germany than to have a War. Again the weaker power (Czechoslovakia) who wasn't even at the Conference, was presented with a Fait Accompli, for the "Greater Good".
While ethicists often laud the "Greater Good" principle, it is an ethically questionable morality because, too often, like in the case of the Planets sold out by the Federation, it is the Weakest and most vulnerable who suffer most from the decisions made for the "Greater Good".
Furthermore, consider this possibility - The Federation compromised more than Humans. Imagine a scenario where in a future Federation, the Klingons, Romullans, Vulkans, Bejorans, etc decide that to prevent/end a War, Earth and many/all Human planets should be handed over to the Borg, for the "Greater Good". Would you be fine with that?!
eesh steve... Normally I agree with a lot of your stuff, but I think you are missing an important part of this conversation: That all too often relocation of a peoples IRL has been justified as a "greater good". Hell, the indigenous peoples of north America specifically were often told that displacement was "for their own good". Yes ST maquis had a free pass to be relocated, but the more important issue is that they should never have been asked to leave those planets in the first place. The galaxy is a big place, I'm sure the federation could have found other planets to cede to the Cardassians. The decision to relocate was a decision made out of expediency. It was a decision that solved the federations problems, and it was sold to the colonists, who we have to remember colonized these planets specifically to avoid this situation from their distant past, on the idea that this time it was super duper necessary and would stop a war. You may be able to see yourself being okay with that, but I for one would be mad as hell and willing to fight. Great video! Love when you dig into the right and wrong of the far future, and this topic was definitely worth thinking about today.
Here's a dark thought that crossed my mind recently. What happened to the Native American colony during the Dominion War? Presumably the Cardassians wiped them out with Dominion assistance, which... Jesus what an end to that storyline. However improbable this might be, I want to imagine that they either somehow resisted or were permitted their autonomy by the Dominion, who perhaps sympathized with their story. (But as I write it, that just seems improbable.)
Star trek legal question, given that the federation is a federation if planets, does it really have the right to give away territory without the consent of that territory?
Take the US, the Union cannot give away the territory of a state without the consent of that state even if the seeding is part of a treaty.