@@K11-s1i he was kind of backed into that shitstorm and he stood up to the generals when they wanted to send the troops in and towards the end he was moving towards a rapprochement with Castro’s Cuba, see the Jean Daniel peace mission. “I believe that there is no country in the world, including all the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime.… I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.”
As far as a US president in the 1960's could go, JFK was alright. This is partially why he caught a buller -- not even going into conspiracy stuff, the shooter was a conservative who was very angry at JFK's reforms and general acceptance of progressive groups. PS.: Quickly going into conspiracy stuff, there's a lot pf evidence that the CIA killed (or backed the killing) pf JFK for those same reasons.
The quote that always resonates with me is (paraphrased) "War is the rich person's terrorism. Terrorism is the poor person's war." I've always taken that to mean that violence, whether used by the state or against it, is used to demoralize and defeat the receiver of the violence and the only real difference between the two words is the might and wealth of the group using the violence. If there are times when war is justified then there are axiomatically times when terrorism is justified. Now whether or not war is ever justified is another thing but I think separating the two is a false dichotomy created by the powerful to demonize those who fight against them.
@@andrewfox368 You don't think the obvious riposte to that argument is that outside states funding terrorism is a cheaper option than outside states funding a war or sending their own troops in to support the terrorists openly?
@@andrewfox368 When you look at the amount of resources oppressive states used to "Beat down" on oppressed populations, the funding question isn't even close. Take, as an example the many, many genocides carried out by the "moral exemplars" known as the British Empire. They aren't "Terrorists". They are just Vicious Evil conquerors, plundering the Planet, because they want to. Or, if you want a US example, consider the many, many examples of the genocides of Indigenous Americans, simply because European invaders wanted their land and the resources underneath them. Should they just lie down and die? Or should they fight back and kill Every Single White Invader, who BENEFITED from the genocides?! In other words, are you a conqueror, or are you the VICTIM of immoral conquerors?!!!
I don't think it's quite so easily broken down. I believe that there are certain specific tactics, that regardless of the nobility of the cause, can be labelled 'terrorism' as a separate and more reprehensible action than simple warfare, symmetric or otherwise. To me, a group who uses torture, or rape, as part of their process of defeating their enemies, is a terrorist organization, even if they're an elected government. Note: I'm specifically referring to groups whose high command has chosen to condone such activities--unfortunately, war brings out the worst in a portion of humanity, so yes, some soldiers will cross those lines. How the government or organization addresses such transgressions is what determines, in my view, whether they are a terrorist organization or state.
Star Trek doesn’t glorify terrorism but it does EXPLORE it and that often gets confused. The difference between The High Ground in TNG and the Bajoran/Cardassian ongoing conflict is that the former was authoritarianism and latter was colonialism, which is a popular trope in science fiction. It is never specified whether Cardassia is post-scarcity or not but if that is the case, then appropriating inhabited planets when there are uninhabited ones in space is particularly egregious. It is ambiguous where the line is between terrorism and self-defense but Star Trek allows to look at it or for it objectively.
Star trek is a science fiction version at times of the of a living allegory of the Bible if you look at it closely and it's philosophy and it's debates on The human condition Believe it or not when people think of cancel culture and people shutting others down in conversation maybe they are having something that they don't even want to see about themselves or other people cuz they're living in a total fear of something they do not understand or no one can understand but when they read it and see it come to pass they begin to wonder if the Bible is real and they begin to question if they need to answer for something higher when they look down upon others why do they do that simple there's certain allegory messages with inside Star trek that remind me a lot of several pathages in the book of Revelation I'm like no thanks I'm shutting your asses down again you're not getting what you want goodbye huh right to work not doing it ma they want me to go back to work not happening that's socialism.
As I understand it, they were resource poor at the time of the occupation. They needed resources for their war with the Federation as well as just keeping themselves afloat. Expand or Die mind sets.
Yeah, another problem along those lines is in the more episodic shows like TNG or Voyager is that certain events are rarely brought up later even though they are very impactful for the characters. Like when Troi was impregnated by an alien and lived an accelerated lifetime and died as a child because it was harming the ship. She was devastated but was smiling on the bridge at the end of the episode and was never mentioned again.
I like that you raised how problematic defining 'terrorism' is. It's sort of like the legal definition of 'porn': "I know it when I see it". There are certainly egregious or archetypal examples, but there are also more subtle or problematic examples. In general the word is a dangerous piece of political rhetoric that's been thrown around way too freely since the Bush years and I think we're seeing the harvest of those seeds of paranoia and division in our current political context.
@@emsleywyatt3400 So... most things then? @philadeos I agree, it's a worthless term because of that. Better to use more concrete terms. E.g. 9/11 was mass murder committed against civilians, a war crime, to say Al-Qaeda are terrorists is almost meaningless now.
One thing I find interesting about your conclusion is that you ignore the time the Federation itself explicitly condones and backs terrorism. In DS9's final season. When the Federation sends Commander Kira to Cardassia to support Damar's resistance movement, it's not because things on Cardassia are nearly as bad as they were on Bajor (yet), it's because ensuring Damar's group knows how to be terrorists is good for the overall war effort. While not Trek, I also think this discussion would benefit from discussing the New Caprica arc on Moore's version of BSG. An arc which aired during the height of the insurgency in Iraq and shows that Moore's attitudes on the subject don't appear to have changed much between DS9 and BSG.
Isn't that more like providing support and training to a resistance movement attacking a hostile power? The Allies did this in Yugoslavia (or whatever it was called then) back during WWII, and many other places. They provided support to Tito, including aircraft and naval forces, but not tanks. He really wanted tanks, and kept asking for them, until they took him to a tank repair facility and showed how many men and resources it took to keep a relatively small number of tanks going, then he stopped asking for them. Honestly I don't know if that was the same, because they were uniformed soldiers, and I don't think Damar's resistance movement was. That said, they were still effectively occupied and under the grip of a foreign power that certainly didn't represent the best interests of the citizens, so while it's not *as bad* as the Cardassian occupation, it was a war where unconventional tactics were being used (I mean, the replacement of many leaders by changelings is pretty huge, is that not terrorism? Just the thought that anyone could be the enemy is horrifying.) and total war at that (by both sides) so they weren't holding back. That doesn't justify it, but I don't think they were glorifying it, either. I think the main reason for that arc was to be able to show the cardassians rising up against the dominion, and the federation helping them, so that they could have better relations post-war, not so much a focus on terrorism.
I think they sent her to set up a counter insurgency, not a terror campaign. Maybe it's a semantic argument, but the tactics are almost identical. Also, it's kind of hard to terrorize Jem'Hadar, who don't feel fear.
Basic notion that terrorism consists of criminal acts intended to provoke fear in order agenda is the most dictionary definitions of terrorism describe it in similar terms what is controversial is a what kind of ass deserve to be labeled as terrorism and be what defines religious overtones and what defiance cancel culture shutting people down making them react harshly like a Marxist would do fix the AI capture there Google you suck at this job. Uploads eq data to ai deep learning server after that video REM sleep recording for smartphone medical tricorder.
Kira is my favourite character in all of Star Trek. Partly because of the exact things you covered here in this video, but for so many other reasons as well. I love the depth of her character, her series-long arc (several different ones, perhaps), her multi-facetedness. She was so well written and so well portrayed.
Its a bit of a clumsy saying, though. Some groups are objectively more of one than the other. Do we honestly place the French Resistance alongside the Khmer Rouge? Of course not.
I had an Afghanistan vet tell me that in basic training. I suspect that people who have fought actual terrorists have a much deeper understanding of this than the politicians who send them to the fight.
"Terrorists? That's what the big army calls the little army." - Wolverine to Captain America (talking about Magneto's actions against nations, fifteen years before the movies)
It is worth remembering, that in the 19th and early 20th century the nature of terrorism was considerably different. It focused mainly on attacking military targets and political leaders and was more akin to what we would call guerrila tactics today. Terrorist attacks on large gatherings of civilians generally came a bit later.
To add to the conversation, our recent two-parter series covers terrorism in the Star Trek franchise: Terrorism In Star Trek Part One: bit.ly/2X9imCX Terrorism In Star Trek Part Two: bit.ly/2PaDRPA
What I love about your content is its thoroughness. The way you argue your cases is sensible, masterful and wise. Another wise TH-camr, Autistamatic, recommended you and I am grateful for the all too few people who create truly grown-up content. Ngā mihi nui, from aotearoa (AKA, New Zealand).
So in other words, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security." Makes sense to me.
The Torys thought the Patriots terrorists for sure. And by most definitions they were. Many Torys got tarred and feathered, run out of their homes, or murdered. But that is the cost of revolution.
Random point, on the topic of glorifying terrorism. I have, in my head, a grand total of one superhero character. Said superhero starts out doing the vigilante thing and knocking out common criminals and delivering them to the police. Eventually, though, she starts talking to them instead. Trying to understand why they're doing what they're doing, and coming to understand that crime's more a byproduct of more prevailing societal ills. Changes course, goes supervillain, starts threatening and murdering corrupt CEO's who are all but untouchable by the law. Straight up off with their heads business. Very public and brutal. Gives them a week to at least start trying to undo the damage that they're doing, and if they don't, they get thrown out of the fiftieth floor window with a steel wire noose around their neck which goes taut at the twenty fifth. .... Curious as to if that would behead a man. Eventually pulls this ultimatum on her own father, expecting to be able to reason him into not throwing his life away. Fails in doing so. Reasons that she's hurt others like herself in the past with her terrorist acts, and refuses to be a hypocrite. I feel like any decent superhero would be villified to hell and back by the mainstream politicians and press. Like Spiderman, but if J Jonah wasn't just a loon.
"Curious as to if that would behead a man." Yes, it absolutely would. As I understand it, one of the practical difficulties with hanging people as a means of execution is that the general idea is to break the person's neck immediately following the drop. Unfortunately, you have to get the length of the drop just right to avoid either beheading them if the drop is too long, or slowly strangling them if the drop is too short. That's part of the reason states were interested in things like the electric chair because it was billed as a more humane and more idiot proof means of execution than hanging.
Kirk and Spock attack a purely military target in time of presumed war. They are also trying to inspire (albeit futilely), rather than terrifying the Organians into action. Laaaarge stretch to accuse them of terrorism.
In "For The Uniform", the glorified Benjamin Lafayette Sisko went full George W. and fought terror with terror and poisoned an entire planet. His only justification for it was to capture Eddington because he betrayed the uniform. As far as I'm aware, Sisko never faced repercussions for this act of terror. While this may not glorify terrorism, it certainly does not condemn it. Star Fleet, like most major political powers tend to look the other way when they themselves commit a terroristic act. By not reprimanding Sisko, Star Fleet silently approved of his actions. Also, "In The Pale Moonlight", the actions and plan that starfleet supported lead to an act of terrorism by Garak in murdering Senator Vreenak. While only two people truly know what happened Sisko can live with it. Again while this may not glorify terrorism, it still points in the direction of if it's beneficial, it's all good.
I am not sure I think all political violence is the same as terrorism. I've always understood terrorism was when civilians where specifically and deliberately targeted to influence change. one trouble with all political violence terrorism or not is it often gives the powers that be the justification they need to crack down and consolidate their own power. In spite of what Star Trek says its more often the political elite crush Opposition and increase their own power. Something to keep in mind whenever contemplating political violence.
Have you heard of state terrorism? It exists, and for me it is much more inexcusable than the other kind, since they have other ways of pursuing their goals, and deliberately choose violence.
My biggest problem with star trek's version if the maquis is that ...well...they weren't backed into a corner. The federation was going to relocate them and the world of star trek is post scarcity so it shouldn't have been that hard to help them find new planets and give them houses that were identical to the ones lost. And every time sisko brings this up with eddington, eddington just makes some comment about how they need to preserve "their way of life" with out explaining what that way of life is. And if their goal was to preserve their way of life, fighting a war against the cardassians certainly didnt help. We see colonists starving in caves without access to food or medicine. Fighting a war without federation back up screwed them over even more than before. I respect what the writers were trying to do, create a grey area in the world of star trek, but the maquis's motivations felt half baked to me. Maybe it's because my main point of contact with the maquis was through the character of eddington, but everytime they appear and talk about their need to preserve their way of life they just sound like the people who are refusing to wear masks in public "because freedom!" That's not to say I didnt enjoy the maquis storyline. I liked it a lot and I think they were used to raise some good criticisms of the federation but I feel their motivation for forming was kind of weak. I havent seen much of Voyager or the episodes of tng where the maquis appear so maybe I'm lacking the full picture but based on what I have seen and read it doesnt seem like that's the case.
I think the general idea of the Maquis is that they had made homes and communities on those planets, and even if they were moved somewhere else, there's no way to recreate exactly what they had. In the real world, relocations usually end up in a complete dissolution of the original community and eventual loss of at least some of the cultural identity of the relocated people (over enough successive generations). However, I think the only time the pro-Maquis argument was ever really convincing in Star Trek was in Journey's End. A bunch of American Indians saying "please stop trying to kick us off our land, white people" is pretty compelling when you consider the spiritual beliefs of some Native peoples and the history of treating Native groups like utter shit, particularly with regard to territorial disputes. Unfortunately, the argument from Journey's End does not transfer well to your average Federation citizens, and I agree it takes kind of a willful suspension of disbelief to view it as anything but whining from them. The Federation clearly has a metric butt-ton of uninhabited M-class planets lying around so each colony could be resettled in their entirety with everything they need and all of their infrastructure replaced. In a post-scarcity society with a guarantee that your community and general way of life will be maintained, if you have no spiritual ties to the land and/or a long history of oppression/ forced relocations by the government, "This is my home and I would rather blow people up than move to another home that's equally good" just sounds like stubborn, petulant, idiocy. It also doesn't help that most Maquis sound a lot like the colonists in that TNG episode where Data blew up an aqueduct to convince them to leave their planet before the Sheliak killed everyone. Anyway, whenever Maquis come up, I try to imagine their arguments are being delivered by the Native Americans in Journey's End instead of a random group of average Federation citizens and then it's easier to sympathize.
@@punkinholler @galactic85 It doesn't help the case of Maquis members like Eddington or even Cal Hudson that not only were they not backed into a corner, but the colonists agreed to terms delivered to them by the Federation after attempting to renegotiate with the Cardassians. After a second round of talks, they were given the choice to relocate or stay and live under Cardassian rule. The colonists agreed, many of them stayed, and SURPRISE: living under Cardassian rule isn't as pleasant as living under the Federation flag.
Great video Steve, though I would like to point out that you did miss at least one terrorist group in ds9, and that was the Terran resistance that Kira and Bashir started in the mirror universe. I would also like to say that classifying terrorism is a tricky thing as it also depends on what side of the fight you are on and what the ultimate outcome of the actions are. The tail of Robin Hood can be classified as a terrorist action as can the revolutionary war. The biggest problem with the world that we are currently living in is the in many ways, and because of the actions of certain leaders ("cough"trump) who uses the term so loosely is that it has been skewed and does not have the same meaning as it did before.
This subject is interesting to me. Growing up I was taught to believe that the IRA were just a bunch of criminal murderers or that the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland were mostly linked to religious segregation. It was only after I saw Ken Loaches film The Wind that Shakes the Barley that I started to see the subject from a wider perspective. I began to study the subject over the years and eventually realised I have sympathies for Irish reunification. Now I would like to stress that I never condone the killing of civilians under any circumstances (not even due to 'collateral damage') and so I am against all forms of terrorism as a result should the 'terrorists' in question commit such an act. It was rather surprising yet almost refreshing however when Data made a reference to the IRA. Ultimately however I think that Irish reunification will happen, and I think it will happen democratically, and probably sooner than we realise.
There are two attitudes towards terrorism in Trek, and there is one event that changed everything: 9-11. Pre 9-11 Trek was pro freedom-fighter. The TNG episode was banned in the UK due to it's sympathy towards the IRA. Hell DS9 was constantly pro-terrorist, even showing Kira using it to help liberate Cardassia. Modern trek is much more anti-terrorist and it's a reflection of the way attitudes towards it have changed post 9-11.
I was a little surprised you left out the part where the one guy explicitly compares himself to George Washington, claiming that the line between terrorists and freedom fighters can depend on one's perspective.
Yea Spock is pretty funny at times. In Galileo Seven, he takes every step not to kill the giant spear throwing creatures which were trying to kill them after they crashed on the planet due to being a "pacifist" and having respect for other life forms. Yet, in "Patterns Of Force" he literally holds a gun to the Daras' head until they explained that she was an underground Ekosian working against Melakon.
I won't be the only one to say this but "The High Ground" was frequently not shown in the UK and Ireland with the BBC censoring the episode by removing mention of a United Ireland won through violence in 2024. It is now a handy meme as we get closer to the date... Similarly, Sky would frequently skip it in syndication. It was occasionally aired in Ireland, but late in the early am hours...
It would be interesting if you and the Trekspertise folks got together to talk about this subject, since both channels have recently put out videos about terrorism in Trek.
A very balanced and intelligent discussion of the issues involved. What was left out was the view that a true definition of terrorism has to include many actions carried out by governments, military, and civil authorities, both in Star Trek and in the real world. The crucial aspect is seeking to use harm, especially to civilians, as a way of achieving political ends. That is done in the real world by governments on a far greater scale than by dissident elements.
I think this is your best video Steve. Just brilliant. I was thinking about Kira the other day and how she never flinches from what she's done but regrets the necessity of it.
I can't help but notice that the trek episodes and arcs that say "terrorism is bad but the terrorists might have a point" were mostly made before 9/11. After 9/11, it becomes more "terrorism is bad punch terrorists in the face."
Much of the former sentiment occurred on DS9 when anti-government sentiment was popular during the 90’s especially in sci fi with Independence Day and the X Files.
I've heard a podcast by an attorny working as defendants to people accused of terrorism. He said that terrorism was a propagandist label used to terminate thought. His thinking on that is that all the acts that are labeled as terrorism are illegal already, so the label is redundant (the terrorists could be condemned for murder, destruction of property, conspiracy, etc...). it'legally unhelpful, especially since there is no clear definition (can a state enact terror? is an accomplice loosely affiliated to a non combat arm of a group label as terrorist a terrorist themselves? is it terror if only property is destroyed? etc...). but when the term is employed, we condemn the act before examining if the grievances are legitimate, if the violence is proportionate, and maybe more importantly if the defendant's rights are respected.
PS - one episode that I think should be essential viewing on this topic is DS9's "Duet," with Kira's interrogations of the Cardassian prisoner who may be Gul Darheel, the Butcher of Gallitep... or a former file clerk. One of the very greatest hours Trek ever made.
I'd say that DS9 has another terrorist in its main cast: Sisko. He attacks a civilian population, driving them from their homes in order to drive the surrender of one of the Maquis. Sisko was actually lucky that his quarry was very concerned about the plight of civilians in Sisko's attacks, as well as trusting that Sisko would stop after he was caught. Kira and the rest of the Bajoran resistance certainly never trusted Dukat to do the same if they turned themselves in. If you're going to single out people out of power using terror tactics, but leave the people in power unquestioned, that seems like more like the question is tailored to whether it is right to resist at all when outside of power. One of the reasons to refuse to attack civilians is because once one side of a conflict starts committing war crimes, the other side will feel justified in acting the same in retribution.
That scene between Picard and Data got the episode barred from British and Irish TV because it states that in the Trekverse the IRA successfully united Ireland in 2024. It aired on satellite TV a couple of years later as THE EPISODE TOO DANGEROUS FOR THE BBC, but with the Ireland line snipped out of the scene. Later repeats on satellite/cable TV - generally after the peace process had lead to the Good Friday agreement would sometimes leave the line in but it was inconsistent. Home video releases of the episode were uncut. The High Ground eventually aired uncut on the BBC in 2007. It never aired on RTÉ before they let their rights to the show lapse.
HOW I DEFEATED FASCISM THROUGH THE POWER OF LOVE, by Luigi - CHAPTER 1: THE POWER OF LOVE The first step in my journey was realizing that it is impossible to defeat fascism with the power of love. CHAPTER 2: THE POWER OF INCREDIBLE VIOLENCE
Steve, "Bones" is a favorite of mine. Talking about terrorism reminded me of my favorite episode of that series. For a very special hour of television, I recommend season 8, episode 6, "The Patriot in Purgatory".
The definition of terrorism tends to neglect the idea that causing a sense of terror is in itself a political, or at least philosophical act. The Joker in The Dark Knight is one such terrorist. He intends to see the world burn. If Gotham City lives in a state of fear, even if that fear isn't tied to a religious or otherwise political ideology, it's still terrorism because it places that population under The Joker's control, almost like a de facto coup.
Just a note, but the groups in the areas given to the Cardassians WERE consulted. The issue is, ultimately, their homes were given away anyway in the name of peace. Whether that is better or worse, being asked and ignored vs never being asked, is another question that I don't have a good answer for.
"But aren't terrorists always supposed to be the bad guys?" Ask any nation that has overthrown an oppressive and abusive regime what they think of that question. The answers will certainly be enlightening.
While I haven't watched any Original Series Star Trek in absolutely forever, from your description I would not consider Spock and Kirk's actions to be "terrorism" as such, as a weapons cache would, in my eyes, be a legitimate target - and let's face it, any Klingons on this planet would be serving in the Klingon military, and not "civilians"... the term I would instead use is "guerrilla warfare". Whether or not Kirk and Spock's actions were LEGITIMATE, as Starfleet officers, would be for Starfleet to decide...
Others have pointed it out but since Kirk and Spock targeted only Klingon military, they arguably fall under the purview of military action not terrorism. Although since they were out of uniform etc. it would qualify as irregular action perhaps even a war crime, but not clear it was terrorism. Even going by the UN definition you give they were not trying to inspire terror in the Klingon population they were trying to rally the Organians. If you don't distinguish military action and terrorism the question just becomes does "Star Trek glorify violence?" Which would be interesting to ask also (sometimes it seems to like its action scenes a bit much). I think your actually clear when discussing Kira that she was willing and did target civilians making her relatively unambiguously a terrorist. Although it arguably depends how much terror among the occupiers was the goal/means of the resistance, Kira's description of herself as a terrorist would argue terror was indeed a part of the project. I think violence is a means that all to quickly warps our ends (we come up with justification for past violence and pretexts for future violence that have little to do with our original goal), however I think it can be necessary (most obviously in immediate self-defense and then on down the road). I suppose this includes terrorist style violence also. However we should be very circumspect about it (this is sort of glib as a proviso sorry). I think even the most necessary of violence always risks spiraling beyond that whatever the end. Whereas I get the feeling some people believe the violence of others has these sorts of hazards and systematic problems, but violence for the causes they believe in is not subject to these moral hazards and corruptions, which I don't see.
For whatever it is worth my head-cannon for the Maquis situation in Star Trek was that most of those colonies were relatively small and so one Cardassian ship could nuke it from orbit with a photon torpedo no problem. Space is really big so the Federation would not have had the forces to stop every Cardassian ship all the time without fail for months or years. So the longer the border war continued the more such colonies would be wiped out. By ending the war early by agreeing to recognize Cardassian claims/ set up the DMZ the Federation saved the lives of all those colonists. If the Federation had prolonged the war by not agreeing to the territorial concessions the Cardassians, then more Federation colonies would have been wiped out until there would have been no one left to care that the Cardassians got the worlds or not. Or something like that. So my sense of the Federation position was the colonists who became the Maquis could either be dead, leave, or live with the territorial swaps of the treaty and the DMZ and Cardassians causing "unofficial" trouble for them. The Maquis position ends up being for practical purposes for the Federation "We want a hot war with the Cardassians so we can all die." The Maquis position is understandable but the Federation one makes more sense to me (more strategically sound).
Steve, does Star Trek make an effective distinction between the act of fighting injustice, as a freedom fighter, a rebel, or a revolutionary, and acts of terror? Do the acts of violence become more those of a 'terrorist' depending on the 'legitimacy' of the targets? As far as I can see, terrorist is a label applied by those in power. Which isn't to say that there is no such thing, but it's certainly a label an oppressive government can use to rob those who are fighting great injustice of their legitimacy.
Errand of Mercy isn’t an example of terrorism. It’s simply members of one side’s military fighting another side’s military. The Klingon’s supposed killing of hostages however, is.
Thank you Steve! I really enjoy your videos and attention to details. I agree with the vast majority of your well worded and thought out observations of Trek in its entirety! Kira is one of the best characters...🖖💖
The situation between the government and the Ensata (hope I'm spelling that right) sounds very similar to what happened in Puerto Rico between the US government and independence movements, right down to keeping records on a whole bunch of people that didn't actually do anything.
I always find it interesting that American pop culture takes such a dim view of terrorism given all the acts of terrorism before the Revolutionary War.
The original SW trilogy was about terrorism glorification. There is an organisation - The Rebellion. Blowing up military stations and trying to overthrow the government. This is at least from the Empire POV. For us, Luke and the others are heroes.
You left out a *major* DS9 terrorist organization: the Terran Resistance. I'd say the harshest view we are ever given of them might call them "inconvenient good guys." At the tail end of the series, there's also the Cardassian Rebellion, again treated as unequivocal good guys as an organization. I think the closest to a coherent message Star Trek provides on terrorism is the same position I take: it is never acceptable or justifiable, but it is sometimes necessary. Picard kind of lays out the logic in an unrelated episode, "I, Borg," "it may turn out that the moral thing to do was not the right thing to do" -- he's drawing a distinction between what is right or moral and what is necessary. I'd take that to be the broad position described by Star Trek as a franchise. The reason the UN has such a difficult time producing a rigorous legal definition for terrorism, and why it pretty reliably has to be defined at national scales is that if you simple omit the "criminal" qualifier or choose to treat it broadly enough, then a *large* fraction of wartime military actions explicitly qualifies. While the more modern popular conception of terrorism equates it with "the bad guys," terrorism really refers to nothing more than a *military* strategy for asymmetric warfare where civilian or popular fear is instrumentalized to achieve some further purpose. Under this broader and imo more technical framing, any military action not directed at explicitly military targets or their supporting infrastructures is terrorism -- that doesn't *make it* wrong, it just classifies the kind of strategy at work.
There is another example in DS9 where terrorism works in the favor of the heroes. Kira and Garak helping Damar lead a resistance movement on Cardassia against the Dominion.
Watching every one of these videos, I can’t help looking at that Discovery sticker and thinking, “there’s a good chance I printed and cut that sticker.”
What's the criminal act? In the laws, there are exclusive clauses that exempt certain acts from the definition of criminal actions. In order to understand that, we first need to understand why we made laws. If an action benefits people, liberate them from certain danger or oppression, then such act, albeit regarded as a criminal act in the criminal law's definition, such action should be excluded from criminal acts. Because one of the reasons we made the law is to protect the people. Once we clear the definition, there's no need to discuss a certain act is or is not a terrorism act. It's even not a criminal act.
"... words will work just as well." Not quite, Steve - I look forward to the day where they always work better (but I think Star Trek teaches us that's a "regulative ideal" in something like a Kantian sense, not an actual occurrence)
I'd define terrorism as "Deliberately attacking non military targets for political ends" - which would make Kirk & Spock's actions justified (as stated in the video, I don't recall the episode) as it was a military target. However, it rapidly runs into problems. Is an arms factory filled with civilian labourers a military target? A police training facility? A train junction that is used to transport tanks but also civilians? Even DS9 can't seem to agree whether Kira's actions were justified or not - in "Duet", Kira condemns a fellow Bajoran for killing Moritza who WAS in the military (even if just a filing clerk) but in "The Darkness and the Light" she claims all the Cardassians were guilty just by being there. It's almost as if terrorism isn't an issue that can be neatly dealt with in an hour of television!
I moved to Hawaii to avoid the social madness that has been sweeping the mainland for decades. The police are relaxed, the courts are too relaxed, and only 171 people have COVID on my island (pop. 145,000). While my family appreciate our safety, I still feel regret for not being able to help in the peaceful demonstrations. Practice Aloha, my friends, and carry a big stick.
Completely missed: ST: Enterprise Desert Crossing. Clancy Brown played Zobral. Legend! Archer openly sympathized, but declined to help on account of a sort of proto-prime-directive.
A lot of other people have said, "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter", which I think is true. Another definition of terrorism that I think is more clear is "non-state political violence." Working from that definition, you can see how the term "terrorism" is strategically deployed to erase the political grievances of "our enemies". Another topic: Everyone compares the Bajoran occupation to the holocaust (I think because the Cardassians are coded as fascist), but the occupation more closely resembles colonialism than geneocide. So I've wondered: What would DS9 be like if the Cardassians were (small "L" small "D") liberal democrats? That seems way more interesting and challenging to me, but I get it's probably not every fan's cup of tea.
Presenting terrorism as a morally neutral historic force is always going to be seen as glorification by large sections of society who are emotionally invested in the status quo.
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The American Revolutionaries regarded the British as repressive and awful, the British regarded the Revolutionaries as ungrateful traitors.
I completely don't agree that Kira is presented as a good guy. I think she is one of the most multifaceted and well thought out characters in the whole franchise. She is absolutely one of the grey guys in the best possible way. And I think it's easy to conflate guerilla warfare with terrorism a little bit. We saw in France in WW2 that the sides get very messed up - it's hard to keep track of who is who and if a target or even warfare is legitimate. I think that's why its so hard to define terrorism.
So, at first I wish to say, that I like your content and the questions you ask, regarding trek. A lot of them are mostly non present on yt. I see myself as a quarter part nerd, so I would give you a A- :). To the topic: If you see Terrorism as it is defined, you could argue, that the bombing of German cities in WW2 could be seen as Terrorism. To make clear, even I’m German, I see it totally justified, cruel as it sounds. But in context, Germany devoured almost entire Europe, industrialized the murder of ethnic groups AND fearbombed the british islands before, what would lead to a total estimated death count of over 70 mio(!) people. I’m with Star Trek here if they say, terrorism CAN be justified and even necessary in rare cases, if every other option failed or can’t even be considered. But I have to even it out a bit, by saying, that a lot of so called freedom fighters use it as their tool of choice without considering another options. Probably there would have to be another definition for that, but still.
same old argument over who the bad guys are; Bajorans say Cardassians are bad, and vice versa. Jedi say the Sith are evil, the Sith say the Jedi are evil. Everything is from a certain point of view as Obiwan puts it.
"The High Ground" was banned in the UK on first broadcast, because of Data's reference to a unified Ireland. At the time the Troubles in Northern Ireland had been going on for years, a fight that could be traced back through the decades to before Irish independence. Yet eight years after broadcast, the Good Friday Agreement was signed and there were the beginnings of a peace. Nowhere near done, of course. But hopefully eight years from now our seemingly-eternal problems will be a mere memory.
It is weird watching DS9 as there are times when Kira calls herself a former terrorist, feels what she did was necessary and seemed to enjoy turning Cardassian soldiers into terrorsists. DS9 portrayed terrorism as sometimes necessary.
Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare by another name. And like any other form of warfare it is only as good or as evil as its objectives, and the means employed to achieve them.
I did wish that show gave a little more focus on the fact she helped kill civilians, that kinda got pushed under the rug a little but it was an interesting arc with her
@@ergob3907 I mean it came up when she was giving advice to Damar: she mentions that if he refuses to ever cause Cardassian deaths, the Dominion will just start putting a few Cardassian civillians at every single site Damar might want to strike. It's ugly but there is a logic to "sometimes you just can't avoid civillian deaths in your asymmetric warfare, the best you can do is try to kill no more than you have to".
@@drewgehringer7813 The caterers - on - The - Deathstar problem. Military ethics usually justifies it under the doctrine of double effect. The civilians aren't targeted, they just happen to be in the wrong place. I presume the Cardassians would have used Bajoran hostages to discourage attacks.
@@alanpennie8013 She refers to hostages or shields during the Cardassian campaign against the Dominion. Her answer: you have to be prepared to kill them too.
This is actually very correct. ST:D says the Vulcans and Klingons were able to form a peace treaty because the Vulcans would shoot the Klingons out of the sky at first site.
Asking because I am genuinely unsure... Were Kirk and Spock attempting to incite terror in the Klingons or just removing an enemy asset in an attempt to, as the mistakenly surmised, level the playing field for the Organians? Is that the sort if nuance that keeps the debates going?
Well, no, because the whole Xindi arc on Enterprise Series 3 was much more nuanced than that. There were good Xindi characters and bad ones in that arc, and the audience was encouraged to see the conflict from their side too even though that whole arc began with a clear 9/11 reference that killed Trip's sister. Which I think is pretty brave coming in a series just a couple of years after that attack.
Terrorism against nazis: good job! Terrorism against us: they're all evil! Terrorism in which we aren't directly involved, or against nazis but in ways which drag us into it: it's complicated...
@@seanyoung247 So... The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria isn't a terrorist organisation? They weren't recognised as a state but aside from that they pretty much were one at a point. Are they then a state that consideres themself at war? Or were they a state that considered themself at war until they lost influence and devolved into a terrorist organisation? Or is everything that made them a terrorist organisation that they were not recognised as a state? I think it's not relevant if it's a single person, a group, nation, planet or federation of planets (basically all just subgroups of "group" anyway...)... If they use violence to instill fear for a political reason, that seems to be terrorism.
11:47, Chilling how that line, "I had a son too. *He died in detention when he was thirteen"* is surprisingly relevant today considering in America, we still have children cages.
It's always been relevant, like how many innocent people have been killed by the US military in the Middle East. It can apply to a many modern conflicts and actions
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” - JFK
@@K11-s1i he was kind of backed into that shitstorm and he stood up to the generals when they wanted to send the troops in and towards the end he was moving towards a rapprochement with Castro’s Cuba, see the Jean Daniel peace mission.
“I believe that there is no country in the world, including all the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime.… I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.”
As far as a US president in the 1960's could go, JFK was alright. This is partially why he caught a buller -- not even going into conspiracy stuff, the shooter was a conservative who was very angry at JFK's reforms and general acceptance of progressive groups.
PS.: Quickly going into conspiracy stuff, there's a lot pf evidence that the CIA killed (or backed the killing) pf JFK for those same reasons.
Like Roosevelt with Japan since 1931
The quote that always resonates with me is (paraphrased) "War is the rich person's terrorism. Terrorism is the poor person's war." I've always taken that to mean that violence, whether used by the state or against it, is used to demoralize and defeat the receiver of the violence and the only real difference between the two words is the might and wealth of the group using the violence. If there are times when war is justified then there are axiomatically times when terrorism is justified. Now whether or not war is ever justified is another thing but I think separating the two is a false dichotomy created by the powerful to demonize those who fight against them.
Guerilla warfare isn't necessarily terrorism, but terrorism probably is guerrilla warfare etc
Anyone who thinks terrorism is the poor person’s war hasn’t seen who funds terrorism. It’s often outside states and the extremely wealthy
@@andrewfox368 You don't think the obvious riposte to that argument is that outside states funding terrorism is a cheaper option than outside states funding a war or sending their own troops in to support the terrorists openly?
@@andrewfox368 When you look at the amount of resources oppressive states used to "Beat down" on oppressed populations, the funding question isn't even close.
Take, as an example the many, many genocides carried out by the "moral exemplars" known as the British Empire. They aren't "Terrorists". They are just Vicious Evil conquerors, plundering the Planet, because they want to.
Or, if you want a US example, consider the many, many examples of the genocides of Indigenous Americans, simply because European invaders wanted their land and the resources underneath them. Should they just lie down and die? Or should they fight back and kill Every Single White Invader, who BENEFITED from the genocides?!
In other words, are you a conqueror, or are you the VICTIM of immoral conquerors?!!!
I don't think it's quite so easily broken down. I believe that there are certain specific tactics, that regardless of the nobility of the cause, can be labelled 'terrorism' as a separate and more reprehensible action than simple warfare, symmetric or otherwise. To me, a group who uses torture, or rape, as part of their process of defeating their enemies, is a terrorist organization, even if they're an elected government.
Note: I'm specifically referring to groups whose high command has chosen to condone such activities--unfortunately, war brings out the worst in a portion of humanity, so yes, some soldiers will cross those lines. How the government or organization addresses such transgressions is what determines, in my view, whether they are a terrorist organization or state.
Star Trek doesn’t glorify terrorism but it does EXPLORE it and that often gets confused. The difference between The High Ground in TNG and the Bajoran/Cardassian ongoing conflict is that the former was authoritarianism and latter was colonialism, which is a popular trope in science fiction. It is never specified whether Cardassia is post-scarcity or not but if that is the case, then appropriating inhabited planets when there are uninhabited ones in space is particularly egregious. It is ambiguous where the line is between terrorism and self-defense but Star Trek allows to look at it or for it objectively.
Various lines from Cardassians heavily imply that Cardassia is not post-scarcity, or at least it isn't for the general public.
Star trek is a science fiction version at times of the of a living allegory of the Bible if you look at it closely and it's philosophy and it's debates on The human condition Believe it or not when people think of cancel culture and people shutting others down in conversation maybe they are having something that they don't even want to see about themselves or other people cuz they're living in a total fear of something they do not understand or no one can understand but when they read it and see it come to pass they begin to wonder if the Bible is real and they begin to question if they need to answer for something higher when they look down upon others why do they do that simple there's certain allegory messages with inside Star trek that remind me a lot of several pathages in the book of Revelation I'm like no thanks I'm shutting your asses down again you're not getting what you want goodbye huh right to work not doing it ma they want me to go back to work not happening that's socialism.
As I understand it, they were resource poor at the time of the occupation. They needed resources for their war with the Federation as well as just keeping themselves afloat. Expand or Die mind sets.
"And they all lived happily ever after! Or not! Who cares? We never see this planet again!"
My biggest problem with Trek in a nutshell.
One I expect Lower Decks will at least side-eye.
Humour-filled though the Ensign's Logs are, they address this every episode, more or less. :)
@@Seal0626 "I can't believe you people went back to worshipping Landru!"
Yup.
Yeah, another problem along those lines is in the more episodic shows like TNG or Voyager is that certain events are rarely brought up later even though they are very impactful for the characters. Like when Troi was impregnated by an alien and lived an accelerated lifetime and died as a child because it was harming the ship. She was devastated but was smiling on the bridge at the end of the episode and was never mentioned again.
ST Lower Decks is following up now.
I like that you raised how problematic defining 'terrorism' is. It's sort of like the legal definition of 'porn': "I know it when I see it". There are certainly egregious or archetypal examples, but there are also more subtle or problematic examples. In general the word is a dangerous piece of political rhetoric that's been thrown around way too freely since the Bush years and I think we're seeing the harvest of those seeds of paranoia and division in our current political context.
@@emsleywyatt3400 So... most things then?
@philadeos I agree, it's a worthless term because of that. Better to use more concrete terms. E.g. 9/11 was mass murder committed against civilians, a war crime, to say Al-Qaeda are terrorists is almost meaningless now.
The problem with these definition is they have zero objectivity. I.e., "Terrorism is terrorism when *I* want to define something as bad."
One thing I find interesting about your conclusion is that you ignore the time the Federation itself explicitly condones and backs terrorism. In DS9's final season. When the Federation sends Commander Kira to Cardassia to support Damar's resistance movement, it's not because things on Cardassia are nearly as bad as they were on Bajor (yet), it's because ensuring Damar's group knows how to be terrorists is good for the overall war effort.
While not Trek, I also think this discussion would benefit from discussing the New Caprica arc on Moore's version of BSG. An arc which aired during the height of the insurgency in Iraq and shows that Moore's attitudes on the subject don't appear to have changed much between DS9 and BSG.
Isn't that more like providing support and training to a resistance movement attacking a hostile power? The Allies did this in Yugoslavia (or whatever it was called then) back during WWII, and many other places. They provided support to Tito, including aircraft and naval forces, but not tanks. He really wanted tanks, and kept asking for them, until they took him to a tank repair facility and showed how many men and resources it took to keep a relatively small number of tanks going, then he stopped asking for them.
Honestly I don't know if that was the same, because they were uniformed soldiers, and I don't think Damar's resistance movement was.
That said, they were still effectively occupied and under the grip of a foreign power that certainly didn't represent the best interests of the citizens, so while it's not *as bad* as the Cardassian occupation, it was a war where unconventional tactics were being used (I mean, the replacement of many leaders by changelings is pretty huge, is that not terrorism? Just the thought that anyone could be the enemy is horrifying.) and total war at that (by both sides) so they weren't holding back.
That doesn't justify it, but I don't think they were glorifying it, either. I think the main reason for that arc was to be able to show the cardassians rising up against the dominion, and the federation helping them, so that they could have better relations post-war, not so much a focus on terrorism.
I think they sent her to set up a counter insurgency, not a terror campaign. Maybe it's a semantic argument, but the tactics are almost identical. Also, it's kind of hard to terrorize Jem'Hadar, who don't feel fear.
Good point about BSG.
“The Darkness and the Light” is such a good episode
The villain is so so interestingly-written, and I really wanted to see more of him.
Basic notion that terrorism consists of criminal acts intended to provoke fear in order agenda is the most dictionary definitions of terrorism describe it in similar terms what is controversial is a what kind of ass deserve to be labeled as terrorism and be what defines religious overtones and what defiance cancel culture shutting people down making them react harshly like a Marxist would do fix the AI capture there Google you suck at this job. Uploads eq data to ai deep learning server after that video REM sleep recording for smartphone medical tricorder.
Kira is my favourite character in all of Star Trek. Partly because of the exact things you covered here in this video, but for so many other reasons as well. I love the depth of her character, her series-long arc (several different ones, perhaps), her multi-facetedness. She was so well written and so well portrayed.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or so the saying goes...
Its a bit of a clumsy saying, though. Some groups are objectively more of one than the other. Do we honestly place the French Resistance alongside the Khmer Rouge? Of course not.
I had an Afghanistan vet tell me that in basic training. I suspect that people who have fought actual terrorists have a much deeper understanding of this than the politicians who send them to the fight.
"Terrorists? That's what the big army calls the little army." - Wolverine to Captain America (talking about Magneto's actions against nations, fifteen years before the movies)
It is worth remembering, that in the 19th and early 20th century the nature of terrorism was considerably different. It focused mainly on attacking military targets and political leaders and was more akin to what we would call guerrila tactics today. Terrorist attacks on large gatherings of civilians generally came a bit later.
To add to the conversation, our recent two-parter series covers terrorism in the Star Trek franchise:
Terrorism In Star Trek Part One: bit.ly/2X9imCX
Terrorism In Star Trek Part Two: bit.ly/2PaDRPA
What I love about your content is its thoroughness. The way you argue your cases is sensible, masterful and wise. Another wise TH-camr, Autistamatic, recommended you and I am grateful for the all too few people who create truly grown-up content. Ngā mihi nui, from aotearoa (AKA, New Zealand).
So in other words, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security." Makes sense to me.
The Torys thought the Patriots terrorists for sure. And by most definitions they were. Many Torys got tarred and feathered, run out of their homes, or murdered.
But that is the cost of revolution.
@@gerrye114
Was the treatment of Major Molineux an act of terrorism?
Possibly.
Random point, on the topic of glorifying terrorism.
I have, in my head, a grand total of one superhero character.
Said superhero starts out doing the vigilante thing and knocking out common criminals and delivering them to the police. Eventually, though, she starts talking to them instead. Trying to understand why they're doing what they're doing, and coming to understand that crime's more a byproduct of more prevailing societal ills.
Changes course, goes supervillain, starts threatening and murdering corrupt CEO's who are all but untouchable by the law.
Straight up off with their heads business. Very public and brutal. Gives them a week to at least start trying to undo the damage that they're doing, and if they don't, they get thrown out of the fiftieth floor window with a steel wire noose around their neck which goes taut at the twenty fifth.
....
Curious as to if that would behead a man.
Eventually pulls this ultimatum on her own father, expecting to be able to reason him into not throwing his life away.
Fails in doing so.
Reasons that she's hurt others like herself in the past with her terrorist acts, and refuses to be a hypocrite.
I feel like any decent superhero would be villified to hell and back by the mainstream politicians and press. Like Spiderman, but if J Jonah wasn't just a loon.
Is that an existing character? Or just a cocept in your head?
"Curious as to if that would behead a man."
Yes, it absolutely would. As I understand it, one of the practical difficulties with hanging people as a means of execution is that the general idea is to break the person's neck immediately following the drop. Unfortunately, you have to get the length of the drop just right to avoid either beheading them if the drop is too long, or slowly strangling them if the drop is too short. That's part of the reason states were interested in things like the electric chair because it was billed as a more humane and more idiot proof means of execution than hanging.
WE SAW CROSSES GROW ON ANZIO
I don’t know why people do this in all caps but let’s see where it goes.
No honorable mention of TNG's The Hunted? The final act in particular came to my mind.
Kirk and Spock attack a purely military target in time of presumed war. They are also trying to inspire (albeit futilely), rather than terrifying the Organians into action. Laaaarge stretch to accuse them of terrorism.
Right. It was guerilla warfare... by military officers in civilian disguise.
In "For The Uniform", the glorified Benjamin Lafayette Sisko went full George W. and fought terror with terror and poisoned an entire planet. His only justification for it was to capture Eddington because he betrayed the uniform. As far as I'm aware, Sisko never faced repercussions for this act of terror. While this may not glorify terrorism, it certainly does not condemn it. Star Fleet, like most major political powers tend to look the other way when they themselves commit a terroristic act. By not reprimanding Sisko, Star Fleet silently approved of his actions. Also, "In The Pale Moonlight", the actions and plan that starfleet supported lead to an act of terrorism by Garak in murdering Senator Vreenak. While only two people truly know what happened Sisko can live with it. Again while this may not glorify terrorism, it still points in the direction of if it's beneficial, it's all good.
I'd love to see some Trek set within the Marquis or Bajoran underground. I think a miniseries would be a perfect way to tell that kind of story
"I'll be good! I promise!" That was perfect! 🤣😂😆 And it went on too far in just the right way....
I love how you always go that extra level of depth and thought. Great video as always!
I am not sure I think all political violence is the same as terrorism. I've always understood terrorism was when civilians where specifically and deliberately targeted to influence change. one trouble with all political violence terrorism or not is it often gives the powers that be the justification they need to crack down and consolidate their own power. In spite of what Star Trek says its more often the political elite crush Opposition and increase their own power. Something to keep in mind whenever contemplating political violence.
Have you heard of state terrorism? It exists, and for me it is much more inexcusable than the other kind, since they have other ways of pursuing their goals, and deliberately choose violence.
Terrorism is something the OTHER is labelled to make their use of violence seem worse.
My biggest problem with star trek's version if the maquis is that
...well...they weren't backed into a corner. The federation was going to relocate them and the world of star trek is post scarcity so it shouldn't have been that hard to help them find new planets and give them houses that were identical to the ones lost. And every time sisko brings this up with eddington, eddington just makes some comment about how they need to preserve "their way of life" with out explaining what that way of life is. And if their goal was to preserve their way of life, fighting a war against the cardassians certainly didnt help. We see colonists starving in caves without access to food or medicine. Fighting a war without federation back up screwed them over even more than before. I respect what the writers were trying to do, create a grey area in the world of star trek, but the maquis's motivations felt half baked to me. Maybe it's because my main point of contact with the maquis was through the character of eddington, but everytime they appear and talk about their need to preserve their way of life they just sound like the people who are refusing to wear masks in public "because freedom!" That's not to say I didnt enjoy the maquis storyline. I liked it a lot and I think they were used to raise some good criticisms of the federation but I feel their motivation for forming was kind of weak. I havent seen much of Voyager or the episodes of tng where the maquis appear so maybe I'm lacking the full picture but based on what I have seen and read it doesnt seem like that's the case.
I think the general idea of the Maquis is that they had made homes and communities on those planets, and even if they were moved somewhere else, there's no way to recreate exactly what they had. In the real world, relocations usually end up in a complete dissolution of the original community and eventual loss of at least some of the cultural identity of the relocated people (over enough successive generations). However, I think the only time the pro-Maquis argument was ever really convincing in Star Trek was in Journey's End. A bunch of American Indians saying "please stop trying to kick us off our land, white people" is pretty compelling when you consider the spiritual beliefs of some Native peoples and the history of treating Native groups like utter shit, particularly with regard to territorial disputes. Unfortunately, the argument from Journey's End does not transfer well to your average Federation citizens, and I agree it takes kind of a willful suspension of disbelief to view it as anything but whining from them. The Federation clearly has a metric butt-ton of uninhabited M-class planets lying around so each colony could be resettled in their entirety with everything they need and all of their infrastructure replaced. In a post-scarcity society with a guarantee that your community and general way of life will be maintained, if you have no spiritual ties to the land and/or a long history of oppression/ forced relocations by the government, "This is my home and I would rather blow people up than move to another home that's equally good" just sounds like stubborn, petulant, idiocy. It also doesn't help that most Maquis sound a lot like the colonists in that TNG episode where Data blew up an aqueduct to convince them to leave their planet before the Sheliak killed everyone. Anyway, whenever Maquis come up, I try to imagine their arguments are being delivered by the Native Americans in Journey's End instead of a random group of average Federation citizens and then it's easier to sympathize.
@@punkinholler @galactic85 It doesn't help the case of Maquis members like Eddington or even Cal Hudson that not only were they not backed into a corner, but the colonists agreed to terms delivered to them by the Federation after attempting to renegotiate with the Cardassians. After a second round of talks, they were given the choice to relocate or stay and live under Cardassian rule. The colonists agreed, many of them stayed, and SURPRISE: living under Cardassian rule isn't as pleasant as living under the Federation flag.
Thank you for making these videos. Always so good.
What a fantastic video Steve, thank you.
Great video Steve, though I would like to point out that you did miss at least one terrorist group in ds9, and that was the Terran resistance that Kira and Bashir started in the mirror universe.
I would also like to say that classifying terrorism is a tricky thing as it also depends on what side of the fight you are on and what the ultimate outcome of the actions are. The tail of Robin Hood can be classified as a terrorist action as can the revolutionary war. The biggest problem with the world that we are currently living in is the in many ways, and because of the actions of certain leaders ("cough"trump) who uses the term so loosely is that it has been skewed and does not have the same meaning as it did before.
This subject is interesting to me. Growing up I was taught to believe that the IRA were just a bunch of criminal murderers or that the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland were mostly linked to religious segregation. It was only after I saw Ken Loaches film The Wind that Shakes the Barley that I started to see the subject from a wider perspective. I began to study the subject over the years and eventually realised I have sympathies for Irish reunification. Now I would like to stress that I never condone the killing of civilians under any circumstances (not even due to 'collateral damage') and so I am against all forms of terrorism as a result should the 'terrorists' in question commit such an act. It was rather surprising yet almost refreshing however when Data made a reference to the IRA. Ultimately however I think that Irish reunification will happen, and I think it will happen democratically, and probably sooner than we realise.
I agree with you and put wars and terrorims on the same level. uman society should find a way to democratize what is now resolved in these 2 ways
There are two attitudes towards terrorism in Trek, and there is one event that changed everything: 9-11. Pre 9-11 Trek was pro freedom-fighter. The TNG episode was banned in the UK due to it's sympathy towards the IRA. Hell DS9 was constantly pro-terrorist, even showing Kira using it to help liberate Cardassia. Modern trek is much more anti-terrorist and it's a reflection of the way attitudes towards it have changed post 9-11.
I was a little surprised you left out the part where the one guy explicitly compares himself to George Washington, claiming that the line between terrorists and freedom fighters can depend on one's perspective.
Yea Spock is pretty funny at times. In Galileo Seven, he takes every step not to kill the giant spear throwing creatures which were trying to kill them after they crashed on the planet due to being a "pacifist" and having respect for other life forms. Yet, in "Patterns Of Force" he literally holds a gun to the Daras' head until they explained that she was an underground Ekosian working against Melakon.
I won't be the only one to say this but "The High Ground" was frequently not shown in the UK and Ireland with the BBC censoring the episode by removing mention of a United Ireland won through violence in 2024. It is now a handy meme as we get closer to the date...
Similarly, Sky would frequently skip it in syndication. It was occasionally aired in Ireland, but late in the early am hours...
It would be interesting if you and the Trekspertise folks got together to talk about this subject, since both channels have recently put out videos about terrorism in Trek.
Just as he is introducing Kira, a midroll ad for Dell talking about collaborators plays...
I did a double take on the "thank you Thank You at the end"
You knocked this episode out of the planet. So good!
A very balanced and intelligent discussion of the issues involved. What was left out was the view that a true definition of terrorism has to include many actions carried out by governments, military, and civil authorities, both in Star Trek and in the real world. The crucial aspect is seeking to use harm, especially to civilians, as a way of achieving political ends. That is done in the real world by governments on a far greater scale than by dissident elements.
I think this is your best video Steve. Just brilliant. I was thinking about Kira the other day and how she never flinches from what she's done but regrets the necessity of it.
I can't help but notice that the trek episodes and arcs that say "terrorism is bad but the terrorists might have a point" were mostly made before 9/11. After 9/11, it becomes more "terrorism is bad punch terrorists in the face."
Much of the former sentiment occurred on DS9 when anti-government sentiment was popular during the 90’s especially in sci fi with Independence Day and the X Files.
I've heard a podcast by an attorny working as defendants to people accused of terrorism. He said that terrorism was a propagandist label used to terminate thought. His thinking on that is that all the acts that are labeled as terrorism are illegal already, so the label is redundant (the terrorists could be condemned for murder, destruction of property, conspiracy, etc...). it'legally unhelpful, especially since there is no clear definition (can a state enact terror? is an accomplice loosely affiliated to a non combat arm of a group label as terrorist a terrorist themselves? is it terror if only property is destroyed? etc...).
but when the term is employed, we condemn the act before examining if the grievances are legitimate, if the violence is proportionate, and maybe more importantly if the defendant's rights are respected.
PS - one episode that I think should be essential viewing on this topic is DS9's "Duet," with Kira's interrogations of the Cardassian prisoner who may be Gul Darheel, the Butcher of Gallitep... or a former file clerk. One of the very greatest hours Trek ever made.
I'd say that DS9 has another terrorist in its main cast: Sisko. He attacks a civilian population, driving them from their homes in order to drive the surrender of one of the Maquis. Sisko was actually lucky that his quarry was very concerned about the plight of civilians in Sisko's attacks, as well as trusting that Sisko would stop after he was caught. Kira and the rest of the Bajoran resistance certainly never trusted Dukat to do the same if they turned themselves in.
If you're going to single out people out of power using terror tactics, but leave the people in power unquestioned, that seems like more like the question is tailored to whether it is right to resist at all when outside of power. One of the reasons to refuse to attack civilians is because once one side of a conflict starts committing war crimes, the other side will feel justified in acting the same in retribution.
That scene between Picard and Data got the episode barred from British and Irish TV because it states that in the Trekverse the IRA successfully united Ireland in 2024. It aired on satellite TV a couple of years later as THE EPISODE TOO DANGEROUS FOR THE BBC, but with the Ireland line snipped out of the scene. Later repeats on satellite/cable TV - generally after the peace process had lead to the Good Friday agreement would sometimes leave the line in but it was inconsistent. Home video releases of the episode were uncut.
The High Ground eventually aired uncut on the BBC in 2007. It never aired on RTÉ before they let their rights to the show lapse.
HOW I DEFEATED FASCISM THROUGH THE POWER OF LOVE, by Luigi
-
CHAPTER 1: THE POWER OF LOVE
The first step in my journey was realizing that it is impossible to defeat fascism with the power of love.
CHAPTER 2: THE POWER OF INCREDIBLE VIOLENCE
Hope that the letter that The Guardian hid after keeping in the open for years brings more viewers
Steve, "Bones" is a favorite of mine. Talking about terrorism reminded me of my favorite episode of that series. For a very special hour of television, I recommend season 8, episode 6, "The Patriot in Purgatory".
The definition of terrorism tends to neglect the idea that causing a sense of terror is in itself a political, or at least philosophical act. The Joker in The Dark Knight is one such terrorist. He intends to see the world burn. If Gotham City lives in a state of fear, even if that fear isn't tied to a religious or otherwise political ideology, it's still terrorism because it places that population under The Joker's control, almost like a de facto coup.
Just a note, but the groups in the areas given to the Cardassians WERE consulted. The issue is, ultimately, their homes were given away anyway in the name of peace. Whether that is better or worse, being asked and ignored vs never being asked, is another question that I don't have a good answer for.
"But aren't terrorists always supposed to be the bad guys?" Ask any nation that has overthrown an oppressive and abusive regime what they think of that question. The answers will certainly be enlightening.
Excellent work
While I haven't watched any Original Series Star Trek in absolutely forever, from your description I would not consider Spock and Kirk's actions to be "terrorism" as such, as a weapons cache would, in my eyes, be a legitimate target - and let's face it, any Klingons on this planet would be serving in the Klingon military, and not "civilians"... the term I would instead use is "guerrilla warfare".
Whether or not Kirk and Spock's actions were LEGITIMATE, as Starfleet officers, would be for Starfleet to decide...
I love this channel.
Others have pointed it out but since Kirk and Spock targeted only Klingon military, they arguably fall under the purview of military action not terrorism. Although since they were out of uniform etc. it would qualify as irregular action perhaps even a war crime, but not clear it was terrorism. Even going by the UN definition you give they were not trying to inspire terror in the Klingon population they were trying to rally the Organians.
If you don't distinguish military action and terrorism the question just becomes does "Star Trek glorify violence?" Which would be interesting to ask also (sometimes it seems to like its action scenes a bit much). I think your actually clear when discussing Kira that she was willing and did target civilians making her relatively unambiguously a terrorist. Although it arguably depends how much terror among the occupiers was the goal/means of the resistance, Kira's description of herself as a terrorist would argue terror was indeed a part of the project.
I think violence is a means that all to quickly warps our ends (we come up with justification for past violence and pretexts for future violence that have little to do with our original goal), however I think it can be necessary (most obviously in immediate self-defense and then on down the road). I suppose this includes terrorist style violence also. However we should be very circumspect about it (this is sort of glib as a proviso sorry).
I think even the most necessary of violence always risks spiraling beyond that whatever the end. Whereas I get the feeling some people believe the violence of others has these sorts of hazards and systematic problems, but violence for the causes they believe in is not subject to these moral hazards and corruptions, which I don't see.
For whatever it is worth my head-cannon for the Maquis situation in Star Trek was that most of those colonies were relatively small and so one Cardassian ship could nuke it from orbit with a photon torpedo no problem. Space is really big so the Federation would not have had the forces to stop every Cardassian ship all the time without fail for months or years. So the longer the border war continued the more such colonies would be wiped out.
By ending the war early by agreeing to recognize Cardassian claims/ set up the DMZ the Federation saved the lives of all those colonists. If the Federation had prolonged the war by not agreeing to the territorial concessions the Cardassians, then more Federation colonies would have been wiped out until there would have been no one left to care that the Cardassians got the worlds or not.
Or something like that. So my sense of the Federation position was the colonists who became the Maquis could either be dead, leave, or live with the territorial swaps of the treaty and the DMZ and Cardassians causing "unofficial" trouble for them. The Maquis position ends up being for practical purposes for the Federation "We want a hot war with the Cardassians so we can all die." The Maquis position is understandable but the Federation one makes more sense to me (more strategically sound).
Steve, does Star Trek make an effective distinction between the act of fighting injustice, as a freedom fighter, a rebel, or a revolutionary, and acts of terror?
Do the acts of violence become more those of a 'terrorist' depending on the 'legitimacy' of the targets? As far as I can see, terrorist is a label applied by those in power. Which isn't to say that there is no such thing, but it's certainly a label an oppressive government can use to rob those who are fighting great injustice of their legitimacy.
or use as casus belli or to pass unpopular laws
Great analysis! :)
Not to take away from Star Trek, but this is the whole “hook” to Battle Star Galactica.
Errand of Mercy isn’t an example of terrorism. It’s simply members of one side’s military fighting another side’s military. The Klingon’s supposed killing of hostages however, is.
Thank you Steve! I really enjoy your videos and attention to details. I agree with the vast majority of your well worded and thought out observations of Trek in its entirety! Kira is one of the best characters...🖖💖
The situation between the government and the Ensata (hope I'm spelling that right) sounds very similar to what happened in Puerto Rico between the US government and independence movements, right down to keeping records on a whole bunch of people that didn't actually do anything.
Really really good stuff.
That scene about the IRA got that episode banned from the UK, where they STILL CAN NOT SHOW IT WITH THAT SCENE IN TACT. So.
Steve, are you making a distinction between terrorists and partisans? It kind of looks like you aren't.
LMFAO; I am so loving the "That's not the American..." bits.
We need more words of wisdom.
I always find it interesting that American pop culture takes such a dim view of terrorism given all the acts of terrorism before the Revolutionary War.
The original SW trilogy was about terrorism glorification. There is an organisation - The Rebellion. Blowing up military stations and trying to overthrow the government. This is at least from the Empire POV. For us, Luke and the others are heroes.
Nice DS9 replica! Now I want one
Admiral, if we were to assume these whales are ours to do with as we please, we would be as guilty as those who caused their extinction.
You left out a *major* DS9 terrorist organization: the Terran Resistance. I'd say the harshest view we are ever given of them might call them "inconvenient good guys." At the tail end of the series, there's also the Cardassian Rebellion, again treated as unequivocal good guys as an organization.
I think the closest to a coherent message Star Trek provides on terrorism is the same position I take: it is never acceptable or justifiable, but it is sometimes necessary. Picard kind of lays out the logic in an unrelated episode, "I, Borg," "it may turn out that the moral thing to do was not the right thing to do" -- he's drawing a distinction between what is right or moral and what is necessary. I'd take that to be the broad position described by Star Trek as a franchise.
The reason the UN has such a difficult time producing a rigorous legal definition for terrorism, and why it pretty reliably has to be defined at national scales is that if you simple omit the "criminal" qualifier or choose to treat it broadly enough, then a *large* fraction of wartime military actions explicitly qualifies. While the more modern popular conception of terrorism equates it with "the bad guys," terrorism really refers to nothing more than a *military* strategy for asymmetric warfare where civilian or popular fear is instrumentalized to achieve some further purpose. Under this broader and imo more technical framing, any military action not directed at explicitly military targets or their supporting infrastructures is terrorism -- that doesn't *make it* wrong, it just classifies the kind of strategy at work.
There is another example in DS9 where terrorism works in the favor of the heroes. Kira and Garak helping Damar lead a resistance movement on Cardassia against the Dominion.
Watching every one of these videos, I can’t help looking at that Discovery sticker and thinking, “there’s a good chance I printed and cut that sticker.”
What's the criminal act? In the laws, there are exclusive clauses that exempt certain acts from the definition of criminal actions. In order to understand that, we first need to understand why we made laws. If an action benefits people, liberate them from certain danger or oppression, then such act, albeit regarded as a criminal act in the criminal law's definition, such action should be excluded from criminal acts. Because one of the reasons we made the law is to protect the people. Once we clear the definition, there's no need to discuss a certain act is or is not a terrorism act. It's even not a criminal act.
"... words will work just as well." Not quite, Steve - I look forward to the day where they always work better (but I think Star Trek teaches us that's a "regulative ideal" in something like a Kantian sense, not an actual occurrence)
I'm sure, as well as Independence Day, they love to celebrate the military too :/
I'd define terrorism as "Deliberately attacking non military targets for political ends" - which would make Kirk & Spock's actions justified (as stated in the video, I don't recall the episode) as it was a military target. However, it rapidly runs into problems. Is an arms factory filled with civilian labourers a military target? A police training facility? A train junction that is used to transport tanks but also civilians?
Even DS9 can't seem to agree whether Kira's actions were justified or not - in "Duet", Kira condemns a fellow Bajoran for killing Moritza who WAS in the military (even if just a filing clerk) but in "The Darkness and the Light" she claims all the Cardassians were guilty just by being there. It's almost as if terrorism isn't an issue that can be neatly dealt with in an hour of television!
I moved to Hawaii to avoid the social madness that has been sweeping the mainland for decades.
The police are relaxed, the courts are too relaxed, and only 171 people have COVID on my island (pop. 145,000).
While my family appreciate our safety, I still feel regret for not being able to help in the peaceful demonstrations.
Practice Aloha, my friends, and carry a big stick.
All these episodes prove is "One man's terrorist is another man's patriot."
Completely missed: ST: Enterprise Desert Crossing. Clancy Brown played Zobral. Legend! Archer openly sympathized, but declined to help on account of a sort of proto-prime-directive.
Love 16:00
Neat
I usually prefer TNG and TOS, but Past Tense was a great fucking episode and... _really_ damn difficult to watch now.
I think the issue is confusing terrorism with revolution.
A lot of other people have said, "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter", which I think is true.
Another definition of terrorism that I think is more clear is "non-state political violence." Working from that definition, you can see how the term "terrorism" is strategically deployed to erase the political grievances of "our enemies".
Another topic: Everyone compares the Bajoran occupation to the holocaust (I think because the Cardassians are coded as fascist), but the occupation more closely resembles colonialism than geneocide. So I've wondered: What would DS9 be like if the Cardassians were (small "L" small "D") liberal democrats? That seems way more interesting and challenging to me, but I get it's probably not every fan's cup of tea.
Terrorism? Regarding the thumbnail: it's more like guerrilla warfare?
Presenting terrorism as a morally neutral historic force is always going to be seen as glorification by large sections of society who are emotionally invested in the status quo.
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
The American Revolutionaries regarded the British as repressive and awful, the British
regarded the Revolutionaries as ungrateful traitors.
This video really illustrates how the Post-9/11 world influenced Star Trek in that with some topics nuance went out the window
Trekspertise put out a video on exactly this recently.
That is one of the most clear and concise explanation of terrorism, especially because of what is going on right now in our country. 🖖
I completely don't agree that Kira is presented as a good guy. I think she is one of the most multifaceted and well thought out characters in the whole franchise. She is absolutely one of the grey guys in the best possible way.
And I think it's easy to conflate guerilla warfare with terrorism a little bit. We saw in France in WW2 that the sides get very messed up - it's hard to keep track of who is who and if a target or even warfare is legitimate. I think that's why its so hard to define terrorism.
15:07 had me loling
So, at first I wish to say, that I like your content and the questions you ask, regarding trek. A lot of them are mostly non present on yt. I see myself as a quarter part nerd, so I would give you a A- :).
To the topic:
If you see Terrorism as it is defined, you could argue, that the bombing of German cities in WW2 could be seen as Terrorism. To make clear, even I’m German, I see it totally justified, cruel as it sounds. But in context, Germany devoured almost entire Europe, industrialized the murder of ethnic groups AND fearbombed the british islands before, what would lead to a total estimated death count of over 70 mio(!) people. I’m with Star Trek here if they say, terrorism CAN be justified and even necessary in rare cases, if every other option failed or can’t even be considered. But I have to even it out a bit, by saying, that a lot of so called freedom fighters use it as their tool of choice without considering another options. Probably there would have to be another definition for that, but still.
same old argument over who the bad guys are; Bajorans say Cardassians are bad, and vice versa. Jedi say the Sith are evil, the Sith say the Jedi are evil. Everything is from a certain point of view as Obiwan puts it.
The more things nowadays are called 'terrorism' the more I realize it's a meaningless word.
When you say "words will work just as well" as bullets and grenades, are you talking about Dune?
I can't help but notice that all of the examples of nuanced depictions of terrorism seem to predate 2001...
I swear Steve, you could do a reasonable impression of Mel Blanc if you gave it some practice.
"The High Ground" was banned in the UK on first broadcast, because of Data's reference to a unified Ireland. At the time the Troubles in Northern Ireland had been going on for years, a fight that could be traced back through the decades to before Irish independence. Yet eight years after broadcast, the Good Friday Agreement was signed and there were the beginnings of a peace. Nowhere near done, of course. But hopefully eight years from now our seemingly-eternal problems will be a mere memory.
Even after the Agreement, that episode can only be broadcast on UK TV with the reference to Irish unification removed.
I could see the Irish Reunification of 2024 actually happening around that time.
@@wratchedlore5015 it's on UK Netflix uncensored.
@@spaldron That's why I said "broadcast".
WIth Brexit 1000's of UK citizens are applying for Irish passports and citizenship. Hows that for irony?
Warfare is terrorism that we approve of. Terrorism is warfare that we disapprove of.
It is weird watching DS9 as there are times when Kira calls herself a former terrorist, feels what she did was necessary and seemed to enjoy turning Cardassian soldiers into terrorsists.
DS9 portrayed terrorism as sometimes necessary.
Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare by another name. And like any other form of warfare it is only as good or as evil as its objectives, and the means employed to achieve them.
I did wish that show gave a little more focus on the fact she helped kill civilians, that kinda got pushed under the rug a little but it was an interesting arc with her
@@ergob3907 I mean it came up when she was giving advice to Damar: she mentions that if he refuses to ever cause Cardassian deaths, the Dominion will just start putting a few Cardassian civillians at every single site Damar might want to strike. It's ugly but there is a logic to "sometimes you just can't avoid civillian deaths in your asymmetric warfare, the best you can do is try to kill no more than you have to".
@@drewgehringer7813
The caterers - on - The - Deathstar problem.
Military ethics usually justifies it under the doctrine of double effect.
The civilians aren't targeted, they just happen to be in the wrong place.
I presume the Cardassians would have used Bajoran hostages to discourage attacks.
@@alanpennie8013 She refers to hostages or shields during the Cardassian campaign against the Dominion. Her answer: you have to be prepared to kill them too.
Spock isn't a terrorist because he attacked first by throwing a grenade at the Klingons, that's just his people's way of saying hello to Klingons.
If he was reciting poetry instead he'd been metoo'd and cancel cultured.
This is actually very correct. ST:D says the Vulcans and Klingons were able to form a peace treaty because the Vulcans would shoot the Klingons out of the sky at first site.
Ah the 'Vulcan hello'
with unstable allies like Klingons who needs enemies?
Asking because I am genuinely unsure... Were Kirk and Spock attempting to incite terror in the Klingons or just removing an enemy asset in an attempt to, as the mistakenly surmised, level the playing field for the Organians?
Is that the sort if nuance that keeps the debates going?
Terrorism in Star Trek pre 9/11: It's complicated.
Terrorism in Star Trek post 9/11: They're all evil.
Well, no, because the whole Xindi arc on Enterprise Series 3 was much more nuanced than that. There were good Xindi characters and bad ones in that arc, and the audience was encouraged to see the conflict from their side too even though that whole arc began with a clear 9/11 reference that killed Trip's sister. Which I think is pretty brave coming in a series just a couple of years after that attack.
Terrorism against nazis: good job!
Terrorism against us: they're all evil!
Terrorism in which we aren't directly involved, or against nazis but in ways which drag us into it: it's complicated...
@@paulhammond6978 Xindi weren't terrorists. They were a state the considered themselves at war with Earth.
@@seanyoung247you’re right, but their attack was also intended as a direct 9/11 allegory
@@seanyoung247 So... The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria isn't a terrorist organisation? They weren't recognised as a state but aside from that they pretty much were one at a point. Are they then a state that consideres themself at war? Or were they a state that considered themself at war until they lost influence and devolved into a terrorist organisation? Or is everything that made them a terrorist organisation that they were not recognised as a state?
I think it's not relevant if it's a single person, a group, nation, planet or federation of planets (basically all just subgroups of "group" anyway...)... If they use violence to instill fear for a political reason, that seems to be terrorism.
11:47, Chilling how that line, "I had a son too. *He died in detention when he was thirteen"* is surprisingly relevant today considering in America, we still have children cages.
It's always been relevant, like how many innocent people have been killed by the US military in the Middle East. It can apply to a many modern conflicts and actions
and many of those kids will grow up... and remember
so there's that 😥
Time for Gabriel Bell, less than 4 years to go.