Honestly I find it a weird choice of the writers to present a future potential outcome of a then contemporary conflict as proof of terrorism working to back up a point being made in that story.
This was without a doubt one of the best, most thought provoking and original essay on ST that I have seen on TH-cam. I would take one exception with one of your comments. Capt Sisko did NOT treat/view Eddington and Cal the same. He treated Cal, who also betrayed his uniform VERY VERY differently. He gave him repeated opportunities to return to the fold, lied/withheld info from the admiral in regards to developments (Cal had switched sides) and I believe even let him go, or failed to pursue him at the end. He treated Eddington VERY differently. I consider this a major continuity issue, and the argument that Eddington reported to Ben so that makes it different (if anyone makes it) is an insufficient argument. All I see is a guy trying to maintain/restore a friendship via hookups in one case, and blind personal rage in another case.
I don't believe it was blind personal rage with Eddington. I certainly think Eddington saw it that way, which is how Sisko was able to manipulate that and use it against him. And if it *had* been true then Sisko wouldn't have been able to see that option (kind of the point of the 'blind' in blind rage)
@@AeneasGemini Maybe. However, it's not just Eddington, but Sisko's own dialog led us to believe it was personal. When the other captain relieved him in the search, he all but implied the same. Sisko ignored orders to abandon the mission, he polluted the atmosphere on a planet. I would consider that personal rage, blind or otherwise. But what about Jadzia? Not sure, but if memory serves, didn't she tell Ben (someone did) something like his REAL issue was failing at a task, making himself look bad, and staining his record?
of Course, he treated them differently his relationship with each before the act of 'betrayal' was distinctly different as such his response to the betrayal is different this is quite obvious
@@lordomacron3719 That was my original point...a critique on the video. So you are agreeing? Look (all) my point here is as an officer, you have a job to do, you can't treat "terrorists" differently because one is your lifelong pal, and one is some guy that worked for you for a a year or so. It also APPEARS that it wasn't terrorism when Cal was doing it (bad writing), he was just helping out folks losing their home, but when Eddington did it, and they wanted to turn Ben more into "Hawk" (bad writing) NOW it became terrorism.
And the group of Xenophobes in Enterprise, Terra prime I think, there was also that group in DS9 that believed the Federation had made everyone "weak and child like"
A few thoughts: I hate that first speech by Eddington. He had good points in the show but that speech was just juvenile and dumb. Also I've read that that the people who made the high ground were pretty disappointed by how their messaging turned out, but I don't know the details. And voyager and especially Chakotay were the biggest wasted opportunity in the whole franchise and that still kinda pisses me off. Finally I love how they handled Kira. They never sugar coated the fact that she was a terrorist and she also clearly hated and was traumatized by what she had to do. I remember one conversation where she tells somone that one you kill somone it's the worst feeling in the world. I wish other shows, movies and games portrayed her kind of character as well as ds9 did.
I love the character of Kira. My favorite DS9 character and among my favorite Star Trek characters. She´s a badass, has done bad, maybe even horrible things and during the course of the series she gains a new perspective on her past and the Cardassians. Duet is an episode I still watch then and there and it´s still one of the most intense ones DS9 has to offer.
@@SirMarshalHaig Yeah Duet is one of star trek's greatest achievements imo. But Kira herself is not really the reason that episode is so well remembered honestly, it was the guy who guest stared as that cardassian.
The problem is while it may seem juvenile to you, everything Eddington said was right. Especially about the Federation being worse than the Borg. That's why I hate people who praise the Federation as some socialist utopia. It's nothing of the sort. It's one of the most twisted and perverse forms of oppression one can ever imagine. It's one where the oppressed will never know that they're slaves. Because while the Federation may offer liberties and a great deal of personal freedom, it strips the citizen of the right to not be part of the hive. Just like an animal in a zoo can mostly do whatever it wants...unless what it wants is to do is leave. This is to say nothing of the humanocentric racism of the Federation. How they look down on other cultures not part of the Federation collective and always seek to assimilate them into the fold. But, Eddington was right. And the Maquis are a prime example of how the Federation will, as a government, abandon and even turn on their own people for daring to step out of line and say they don't want to play ball by the Earth's rules.
@@DrForrester87 Life within the Fed is great, but if you live on it's edge.. The Fed will just cut you lose to save their own azzes when dealing with the Spoon Heads and Klingons. The question I always had was this, what about the Cardassian colonies that ended up in Fed space, did they jump planet and run from their former government ? Former communist Russia and Iran does not put soldiers to guard their boarders that do not have families, just in case those men try to make a run for it. It was said in TNG, " There are no Romulan defectors. " .. only Vulcan space merchants who are in fact Romulan spies.
Can't one be both a terrorist AND a freedom fighter? Look, let's cut to the chase: Kira used terrorist tactics. This alone makes her a terrorist. But she also WAS fighting a war to free her people. I don't think the two ideas are mutually exclusive as most people seem to. The real question becomes this: Is terrorism justified? And if so, when?
This. The questions of "when is it justified?" and "how far is too far, how bloody is too bloody, how many civilians is too many?" are the kinds of question that simply don't have an answer. But they are the questions that separate "right" from "wrong" terror. I can never look at something like the clip here of 9/11 without a swelling of anger and sadness, and I don't think that any outside reading of history will ever put it into the "acceptable" or "justified" category. But even there, those people that took those plane truly believed, honestly and wholeheartedly, that they were in right side. They were acts of unjustified terror, but the people that did it felt differently. If that can have a disparate opinion, how can an answer be reached on tge resistance to Nazi occupied France, or Ireland, or even the American Revolution? The point made in the _Next Generation_ episode is 100% on point. Had we lost the Revolution, had it instead been a failed civil war, Washington and Jefferson and Adams and Franklin, etc. would have been hanged as traitors and terrorists; and rightly so from that history's perspective. I suppose that I don't really have a larger point than not only is there little to no line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"/"resistance"/"rebellion," but even the grey area that they all occupy is unclear.
“Terrorist” is invariably a label applied by those in power, by the people whom terrorist tactics are employed against. Ultimately, it’s the victor that gets to write the history. The Bajoran resistance managed to push out the Cardassians, so to the Bajorans and the Federation the Resistance are freedom fighters. To the Cardassians who were in power, the Bajoran Resistance were nothing more than terrorists. Terrorist and freedom fighter are ultimately the same thing, which it is is simply a matter of perspective.
I think there is a difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter regarding how they use violence and the motivation behind it. The difference lies not just in the eye of the beholder but also in practical reason. There is a difference between ISIS Terrorists who slaughter primarily civilians in order to spread fear and William Wallace or Michael Collins - their prime target was not civilians but the oppressing party. They use violence but the motivation is not based on hate, religion, profit or idiology but to evoke a political change. If the desire for this political change is - compared to ethical standarts and the practical reason - justified, it is not terrorism but a fight for freedom, regardless what the opponents may suggest. It is very difficult to draw a line if the use of violence justifies the means even if you want to improve the quality of live but this line also defines the difference. The label terrorist is used far to often. A person who use violence against an unjust and oppressing system is not categorical a terrorist. There are even groups who want to improve a condition but they turn into terrorists like the RAF. They crossed the line where the violence did not justify the means regarding practical reason and they had become ideological motivated later on. The Maquis fights for freedom and justice and is therefore not a terrorist group BUT there a few members like Lon Suder who do not care about the cause and just enjoy killing. So he is a killer and could defined as a terrorist like every one with base motives crossing a line, but not the Maquis in general.
@@scaper8 "I can never look at something like the clip here of 9/11 without a swelling of anger and sadness, and I don't think that any outside reading of history will ever put it into the "acceptable" or "justified" category"" Did you know that the 9/11 highjackers are known within the Islamic world as "The Magnificent 19"?
Kira is so Op if she were a Klingon she would be Chancelor and Empress in one. On that note if O'Brian would enjoy fighting i would bet he would be feared and reverted by the Klingons given how the Cadassians feared him
One really interesting thing about Kira's self perception is that she is always very insistent on the correct terminology. She always calls it terrorism and doesn't accept anyone trying to make it sound better.
my fav part of the eddington -sisko ordeal: KIRA: The trilithium resin is dissipating throughout the biosphere. The Maquis are scrambling their transport ships. They're starting to evacuate. EDDINGTON: Do you realise what you've done? SISKO: I've only just begun. I'm going to eliminate every Maquis colony in the DMZ. EDDINGTON: You're talking about turning hundreds of thousands of people into homeless refugees. SISKO: ***That's right. When you attacked the Malinche you proved one thing, that the Maquis have become an intolerable threat to the security of the Federation, and I am going intend to eliminate that threat. *** EDDINGTON: But think about those people you saw in the caves, huddled and starving. They didn't attack the Malinche. SISKO: You should have thought about that before you attacked a Federation starship. (Sisko turns his back on the Eddington hologram) SISKO: Helm, lay in a course for Tracken Two, warp six. Commander, prepare two more torpedoes.
@@MrRedcarpet02Of course he was. The man was delusional, even as he fought a just cause. Compare with Kira who is very aware she has done horrible things, and have to live with the consequences.
I should point out that in the episode "Journey's End", it's stated that the colonists knew their planets were disputed PRIOR to their colonization. Not only does that make me loose sympathy for the Marquis, but also the Federation. Instead of negotiating with the Cardassians, they allowed Federation citizens settle there and didn't immediately revoke their citizenship. That's the kind of thing imperialists do and not an "enlightened" civilization like what the Federation claims to be.
@Thelondonbadger Of course they can't stop the colonists, but the SECOND they stepped foot on contested soil, the Federation should have hade it clear they weren't authorised to do so and revoked their citizenship. Not treat them as Federation worlds until AFTER they've ceded the planets to Cardassia. If they were independent from the start, the colonists wouldn't have felt betrayed when the Federation suddenly abandoned them and it wouldn't look like they were illegally expanding into disputed territory.
@Thelondonbadger Because the US has agreed that the house is still on US soil. Say the US and China found an uninhabited island and aren't sure who it should belong to. If China sends people and treats them as if they were in their territory, they are basically claiming that territory as theirs in the eyes of the US.
@Thelondonbadger Whether they were sent by the Federation or not, it looks like they were from the Cardassian's POV, and unless they are even stupider than I think, the Federation knows it looks that way. The only way to make it not look like they are encroaching into other power's territories would be to make it illegal to colonise uninhabited planets claimed by both powers, and at the very least kick people out of the Federation if they try to do so. Since the Colonists are still citizens at the beginning of "Journey's End", they obviously didn't do that.
@Thelondonbadger But all the worst decisions were made before DS9 and the parasite infiltration. They shouldn't exile the colonists, but if a group of people say they want to live on a world claimed by another power, they should treat them as a third party if they want to live on those specific planets, since it's unclear if the Federation had any right to settle those worlds. All the grey areas afterwards are just natural consequences of them doing something they never should have done in the first place.
I feel as though this is basically promoting the whole "ends justify the means" argument. The problem with this position is that everyone draws the line in a different place, and ultimately every academic argument is futile. In the end when politics resorts to force, discussions on the morality of the issue are null and void, since violence becomes the only argument that matters. If we've reached that point, then the only moral argument I would make is to question whether we even any longer deserve the outcome that we want, since we've already degenerated into a society where moral discussions are irrelevant. In the end, moral positions are just the frameworks we use to rationalise our selfish agendas, the moral high ground is a delusion. The people who pretend otherwise, and are willing to use violence (other than immediate self defence), are on a parr with history's worst tyrants and despots (who probably had the same mentality)
The stuff you guys produce is a master class on Star Trek and how it influences real life and vice-versa. Keep up the great work guys, it's excellent 👍
There was a recent book out by a Cogntive scientist named Hugo Mercier called "Not Born Yesterday." That brakes down the science of what and why we believe things, and frankly as much as I like Star Trek it dosen't have an affect on us. No media really dose. It might be a somewhat dull reflection of reality though.
@Leo Peridot It was when Voyager started getting data packets from the alpha quadrant. Chakotay gets a message that the Maquis was wiped out by the Dominion, most likely from the Founders infiltrating their ranks the way they had done with the Tal Shiar.
Very excited for part 2. The way the franchise noticeably changed in response to 9/11 and how it can be used as a reflection for what happened in the society of the United States has always been a very interesting topic for me.
The bombing incident at World Trade Center in 1993 should brought red flags for Our FBI, CIA and State Dept. These were terrorists testing to see how Our Government would respond. Apparently. we stayed asleep until too late.
I've never seen this channel before, but I'm glad this video came up in my recommendations. That was fantastic. Subscribed, and looking forward to the next part.
Re. How the viewer is suppose to see Kira. I can tell you as a teen that grew up watching DS9, I took Kira as obnoxious. I wasn't particularly swayed by the Bajorans struggle because it felt omipresent. They were always victimized and it became part of the brown of the walls. I didn't take Kiras' struggle seriously because she was an absolute hothead who got the cast into trouble with her mouth more than once. I was undoubtedly still too young to understand the implications of the terrorism/occupation storyline, but its worth mentioning that as a kid I never felt like they implicitly say "She is one of the heroes and thus is correct in her cause." They highlighted how shortsighted she can be more than once.
Terrorism is a tactic. More often than not, it is used by those who may not be able to defeat their enemy on the fields of battle due insufficient force size. However, you may also see it used by a foe who would smash dissent. We may debate if the terrorism and guerilla tactics of the Bajorans and the Machi are justified, but remember, the Cardassians were guilty as well, thus raising the stakes.
Chakotay's home planet was literally supposed to be the same planet that Picard and Co. go to to try and move the native Americans off of it. And the starfleet academy instructor that teaches Ro Laren the extra tactical training before leaving to join the maquis (after which Ro Laren followed him and joined herself), that was Chakotay too. The writers have confirmed this. I always loved that part of it. The Maquis is really one of the only things that existed across all 3 90s trek shows, and that was intended from the beginning as a way to crossover the shows together by having that shared aspect.
I would say, the difference between someone who fights for freedom and a terrorist is the selection of targets. If someone select random civilian targets with the goal of civilian casulties, then it is terrorism. If someone attacks military personel and important administrative civilians, it might be considered a freedom fight.
I'm sure most people who took half an hour out of their lives to nerd out over an essay about terrorism in Star Trek already know, but I remember hearing once that Kira Nerys was originally meant to be the return of Ro Laren herself.. From what I remember, there was something that made the actress decide not to return, and so they had to adjust their plans.
unrelated to the topic of the video (and I applaud you for how well-executed this is on the whole) but it cracks me up when you do the voices of the people talking about the harper's ferry raid
Terrorism is still terrorism, even if the cause is just. Unlike the definition of murder, the definition of terrorism does not depend on the motivation of the terrorist. Murder is defined as the deliberate, unlawful killing of a human by a human. If you kill someone by accident, even if you were extremely careless (criminally negligent) it is at most manslaughter, and may not even be a crime depending on the circumstance. Kill someone deliberately, but legally (say in war or self-deference) again, not murder. Rather it would be justifiable homicide. Terrorism is defined as an act of violence for some cause (political, religious ect). There is nothing there about lawfulness or justifiably. It makes no difference if the act was justifiable. It is still terrorism.
By that reasoning, then, terrorism itself is a morally neutral term and all burden of morality lies in the motivation. Why, then, not simply discontinue the use of a useless term like terrorism and cut to the root cause?
@@Coridimus The morality of *ALL* things is based on the motives. However, terrorism is very rarely justifiable. Just because it can be, in theory, be justified. That doesn't mean it can be justified in practice. You should see the movie V for Vendetta.
@@erictaylor5462 i have seen it. Many times. Ive also ready the graphic novel 3-4 times. I suspect we drew starkly different lessons from the narrative.
Calling Bajorans as "terrorists" is same as calling The French Resistance and all the Jewish people in concentration camps during WW2 as "terrorists" too. One must be careful while using such terminology, those "gray" areas can become semantic quicksands.
John Brown was one of the greatest human beings in the history of humankind. He knew he was going to die....and did it anyway. THAT was a GOD fearing man.
Terrorism is just a method, or tool. It's not an inherently more evil tactic of warfare than invasion or occupation. The morality of terrorism depends on the morality of what your fighting for or against. The grey area only exists for moral relativists, and those who have an undeveloped theory of ethics.
So much of fan upset with Discovery and Picard, both, is about the push away from TV norms of the 20th century. These shows are CBS All Access's Game of Thrones response: the idea is high accessibility to an older, more sophisticated audience than other Treks. I've been so impressed by both the second season of Discovery and the first of Picard. This franchise has moved on ahead. Getting caught up in the comfortable past is something any classic 20th century Trek maker would also disagree with.
Critics of Picard: "This is poorly written, and doesn't seem like a faithful sequel to TNG." NuTrek Defenders: "YoU juST hAtE tHe sPaCe nINja lEgOLAs loL!"
Speaking specifically on Washington, who Crusher and Finn discussed, he wasn't afraid to do brutal things to achieve victory. Destroying Indian settlements aligned with the British was a military necessity, so he ordered it.
This has probably been mentioned before, but with the definition of terrorism you've provided, Captain Sisco's action to poison a civilian planet to force mass migration is also a form of terrorism, if not genocide, since forced relocation is also a form of genocide. Of course you can say the Marquis under Eddington's leadership is already doing that to Cardassian colonies, so Sisco's response is justified. However, Eddington would argue that the Cardassians were doing that to them first, so the Marquis response was equally justified. Of course, Sisco came out the winner, so to many he is the "general" and not the terrorist. But I've always been deeply troubled by that entire arc.
To be fair, I think the point _is_ to be deeply troubled. The point, I think, is to come out saying, "None of that was _right!_ But they all had justification. So way all of it right? Some of it? None of it?"
I personally would not support terrorism. But, I did understand why Marques fought against Cardassia and Federation. Both Governments made Treaty without offering boarder colonys involvement in process. It's like a big corporation taking eminent domain over your house. And proceed to tear down while you're still living there.
Excuse me, just a correction... You said this episode was not broadcast in the British Isles.... It was because I saw it myself. This episode was shown on BBC2 on the 29th September 2007.
Well, Brexit means the UK must have a hard border to the EU. The Good Friday Agreement requires borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to be open in order to preserve the peace...The Brits have done it to themselves.
Well I wonder what his motives would of been if he won at Harper's Ferry. Would he just of killed the Masters of the plantations? Or would he if killed the Masters wives & children too? (This statement is not an endorsement of slavery)
@@TheMrPeteChannelHis plan was a widespread slave rebellion accross the south. Plantations burned, slaves armed and so on. If he would actively target children? No idea.
Hi Pinkskin! Great video, as always. Comprehensive, jam-packed, entertaining and thought-provoking, as is the standard from #Trekspertise. The topic is full of pit-falls and minefields. You use a term considered by some in Ireland to be contentious and politically-loaded: "The British Isles" in your point @8:13 However, the video cannot be faulted for that. Liked and shared.
Sinn Fein... Finn. Not pulling your punches, eh TNG? I also love the "...Irish unification of 2024" bit - 1) because it's something that would obviously get the episode pulled from the UK and they left that shit in the script anyway. 2) I'm going to lmfao when Data's little pseudo-history nod turns prophetic. The Economist literally put out an August issue with "A United Ireland - Could it Really Happen"? It's not an 'If' anymore - it's simply a 'when'. Demographically speaking, the writing is on the wall and Parliament has done little to endear itself to even the Unionists anymore - who so often talk of 'betrayal' by a country that's quickly becoming unable to sort out its own shit in its own backyard, let alone theirs. For better or worse, United Ireland will become a reality - not by 2024 most likely, but within my lifetime. Of that I have little doubt.
Going to rewatch this masterpiece of a two-parter on 9/11 A few take away thoughts though, I sort of prefer this tenor over the part two tenor. I partially think it is because I am more of a DS9 fan but also because I didn't grow up with any trek and I was 4 when the attack happened. For me, it seems like an event in the far distant past. But no, it has only been 20 years. And those same invocations of terrorism seem to be all the more relevant after January 6th then many of us American's like to believe. It doesn't matter what age we are in either historical or contemporary; fantasy or sci-fi Terrorism is here to stay and we ought to take a critical lens at it. Plus, these videos are easier to rewatch then all 14 seasons of DS9 and Voyager so I will just do that instead lol.
@@Trekspertise Interesting question but basically, the big two reasons were my brother who I love alot and idolize. He is big into Trek and I remember once getting into a debate about why I (at the time) couldn’t get into trek because it is too realistic or something. Of course I was wrong, but comparing it to my ideal sci fantasy like Star Wars, I still like my stories to have fantastical elements. He eventually got me to watch the 2009 films, which I think are pretty good and then I watched almost all the Q episodes in TNG. After that, I was hooked but later found out TNG was less my speed and DS9 (my favorite) and Voyager (underrated and overhated) are my big ones. The second is much simpler, probably mentioned this earlier. I was having a writers block with my own sci fi. I dont use warp drive but I had the exploration element. I knew something didn’t quite click writing weekly so on a whim I watched DS9 about a year and a half ago. Now, I think Trek has taught me more about writing as did many writers like Russel Bates, Micheal Piller and Ira. So I have a more positive and sometimes kind of personal opinion with trek. I personally think modern trek is a mixed bag. I love Lower Decks, I dont like Picard. Havent seen Discovery yet, but mostly because of the time constraits in my final year at university. Tldr: My brother got me into it and I wanted to improve my writing on both exploration and humanism. Trek taught me how to do both in a way that didnt feel preachy. Which is ironic because as you might know, alot of fans say trek is too political and I sort of just chuckle. Like, I don’t even know how to argue against it except watch DS9 and pay attention to the political symbolism. But yeah, that is my story. If I ever republish my stories, my pen name is Nicol Terra. Same as my youtube, which I hope to do content for soon but not for trek. (I personally prefer animation over live action. Probably why Lower Decks shot up to my top 3 out of the like, 9 current trek series if I counted correctly.
There was an invasion on the Spanish autonomic Province of Puerto Rico in 1898, by the United States, followed by 50 years of imposed American Governors. One of those, Blanton Winship, ordered a massacre by the police in 1937, on an Palm Sunday day parade, some 19 unarmed nationalists were killed on the spot and close to 200 wounded, and scores of people rounded up by police, just for being suspected nationalists. In 1954 there was an attack on US Congress by a small group of nationalists. There was a gag law (ley de Mordaza) that prohibited the Puerto Rican Flag, the anthem and even talking about independence for Puerto Rico. Now the media in this island and the government is controlled by the Cuban exile and nationalists are still persecuted and killed (see the movie A Show of Force -Cerro Maravilla murders) by the authorities, police and FBI, latest was Filiberto Ojeda. Now you be the judge....
@@Trekspertise seriously these videos are what I can't articulate to people as to why Star Trek is unique, it always (not always) has an important question to ask. Thank you.
As a British person the Cardassians remind me most of the British Empire. It makes me sick that glorifying the British Empire is still considered an acceptable thing to do. It shows that we haven't really evolved as much as a society as we like to tell ourselves.
I can sympathize with the Bajoran people both on a cultural level and personal level because the Bajorans in some ways remind me of my own people, Koreans who endured brutal occupation of the Japanese empire and were forced into sexual slavery through comfort women. The concentration camps, oppression of their spirituality is of course reminiscent of the holocaust that the Jewish people endured under the Nazis. Being both Jewish and Korean, the sufferings of Bajoran people and their struggle to rebuild their planet after years of Cardassian occupation is all too real.
A very brave analysis. Trek, at its best, is unafraid to open some cans of worms. To play with moral ambiguity and ask questions it doesn't necessarily answer (unlike certain franchises which prefer a straightfowrard good-versus-evil dynamic). The question boils down to: are the citizens of a state ever justified in taking up arms against the state? (Complicated in times of occupation, when the "state" in question is external). As a Quaker, my answer would have to be "no", yet I'd find it very hard to argue with Mandela's decision to take up arms against Apartheid, or anyone who fought the Nazis. These complicated questions need to be asked and asked and asked again, because the conversation needs to happen. Another question is: how does a terrorist know when what they are doing is justified? They all believe that they are, but some are deluded and/ or brainwashed. When can one trust oneself to make that decision?
Well, I think Roa being there doesn't really make much sense, or rather, it's weaker than having someone who was a terrorist her entire life and only has any political or military rank because of her terrorist deeds (and doesn't really trust the federation) is much stronger. If you mean she would have ALSO been there, that is fine - it's someone to sort of feel caught in the middle, but I think everyone from the Federation being outsiders is a better thing.
BINARYGOD No I was simply saying that in the original concept for the show Roa was going to be the DS9 liaison officer for Bajor but the writers either went in a different direction or the actor turned it down. It he’s a little odd that you never hear from Roa in DS9.
It's easy to sympathise with the Maquis and Bajorans. Have we ever seen Maquis commit terror acts against innocent civilians? Even Bajoran fight was centered on occupying forces on and around Bajor. Those are hardly realistic depictions of terror groups. Kind of a cop out.
It is so interesting that you end this science fiction commentary with the Twin Towers Affair. How sciency is your science fiction? Can you build a 1360 foot skyscraper without figuring out how to distribute the steel and concrete down the structure? The bottom must be strong enough to support the weight of the top. Where is that data in the NCSTAR1 report? This involves Potential Energy, the Conservation of Momentum and the Center of Gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower. Many SF fans cannot handle that much science. In 1940 it only took 4 months to model the physics of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. No computers! LOL
I always thought major Kira needed her ass kicked at least one time, not because I don't love the character but because it would be nice to see how she continuously grow stronger through hard knocks.
The thing that always bothered me was EVERYONE (Garak, Dukat, Dar'heel/Maritza, to name 3) called Kira a terrorist and she never corrected them and advised that she was a freedom fighter trying to retake her homeland (same as Maquis). So, if she was a terrorist, how did she get to be 2nd in command of a Federation space station? Answer, because she wasn't. Kira was an awesome character on this show and I think it's poor writing for them to let this terrorist thing not be challenged IN UNIVERSE.
@Classic Flix DS9 was a Cardassian built/run station that the Federation took over when the Cardassians left after the occupation. Not sure when/how it was ever a Bajoran station. I 100% agree with you on Kira. She should/could have had her own show. One of the most layered characters on that show.
@Classic Flix Ok. So I am slightly wrong it is Cardassian built as I stated (they had another identical one Empok Nor, as you know...episode when Garak was running around killing folks), but you are right after the occupation it became Bajoran, but the Federation ran it
As I understand it she killed civilians, as collateral damage if nothing else. And she isn't Eddington trying to delude herself into a hero in a fictional story.
"Stratos!"
"Stratos!"
"Stratos!"
_"Its only a model..."_
Quiet!
I understood that reference
Not even that, it's a mat painting.
The Sneezing Picture - It is a silly place.
*on second thought lets not go there...'tis a silly place*
Terrorism literally united Ireland in Star Trek. That small piece of Trek lore still sticks with me.
With Brexit, there's still a chance for the 2024 prediction.
Come out You Black and Tans!
So there's still one thing to look forward to in these dark times... Tiocfaidh ár lá!
Honestly I find it a weird choice of the writers to present a future potential outcome of a then contemporary conflict as proof of terrorism working to back up a point being made in that story.
@@rade-blunner7824 Yeah, that episode was banned in both Ireland and Britain
I think of all the series, DS9 handled terrorism the best in showing the good, the evil and the gray.
No one:
Absolutely no one:
Sisko: Y O U B E T R A Y E D Y O U R U N I F O R M ! !
L.O.L. ! ! !
Sisko is a douche in that episode.
I always found it sad that the actor playing Edington couldn't match Brooks's energy there. YOU BETRAYED YOUR UNIFORM -- weLL uM yOu bEtRaYeD yOuRs
Senator Vreenak: It's a FAAAKE!
Oh Yeah 2024 😂😂😂😂😂 here we come😂😂😂😂😂
This was without a doubt one of the best, most thought provoking and original essay on ST that I have seen on TH-cam. I would take one exception with one of your comments. Capt Sisko did NOT treat/view Eddington and Cal the same. He treated Cal, who also betrayed his uniform VERY VERY differently. He gave him repeated opportunities to return to the fold, lied/withheld info from the admiral in regards to developments (Cal had switched sides) and I believe even let him go, or failed to pursue him at the end. He treated Eddington VERY differently. I consider this a major continuity issue, and the argument that Eddington reported to Ben so that makes it different (if anyone makes it) is an insufficient argument. All I see is a guy trying to maintain/restore a friendship via hookups in one case, and blind personal rage in another case.
Good thoughts! And thanks for watching! We've got more essays on this channel :)
I don't believe it was blind personal rage with Eddington. I certainly think Eddington saw it that way, which is how Sisko was able to manipulate that and use it against him. And if it *had* been true then Sisko wouldn't have been able to see that option (kind of the point of the 'blind' in blind rage)
@@AeneasGemini Maybe. However, it's not just Eddington, but Sisko's own dialog led us to believe it was personal. When the other captain relieved him in the search, he all but implied the same. Sisko ignored orders to abandon the mission, he polluted the atmosphere on a planet. I would consider that personal rage, blind or otherwise. But what about Jadzia? Not sure, but if memory serves, didn't she tell Ben (someone did) something like his REAL issue was failing at a task, making himself look bad, and staining his record?
of Course, he treated them differently his relationship with each before the act of 'betrayal' was distinctly different as such his response to the betrayal is different this is quite obvious
@@lordomacron3719 That was my original point...a critique on the video. So you are agreeing? Look (all) my point here is as an officer, you have a job to do, you can't treat "terrorists" differently because one is your lifelong pal, and one is some guy that worked for you for a a year or so. It also APPEARS that it wasn't terrorism when Cal was doing it (bad writing), he was just helping out folks losing their home, but when Eddington did it, and they wanted to turn Ben more into "Hawk" (bad writing) NOW it became terrorism.
You left out Bajoran xenophobic terrorist group the Circle. Hope to see them in Part Two?
Same here
And the group of Xenophobes in Enterprise, Terra prime I think, there was also that group in DS9 that believed the Federation had made everyone "weak and child like"
part two...
There is also Terra Prime
@@mynthecooldude Terra Prime
Excellent quarantine martial.
Harper's Ferry is in present day West Virginia, and John Brown's raid is actually taught as a point of pride growing up in the area
May not seem like it now but WV’s origins are rooted in abolitionism and the anti-slavery movement
In kansas, his story was a bit of a hero folk tale in my history class
An extremely nuanced video. I wish more people could see this and star trek in general
Thanks! Part two is going to be bananas!
A few thoughts:
I hate that first speech by Eddington. He had good points in the show but that speech was just juvenile and dumb.
Also I've read that that the people who made the high ground were pretty disappointed by how their messaging turned out, but I don't know the details. And voyager and especially Chakotay were the biggest wasted opportunity in the whole franchise and that still kinda pisses me off. Finally I love how they handled Kira. They never sugar coated the fact that she was a terrorist and she also clearly hated and was traumatized by what she had to do. I remember one conversation where she tells somone that one you kill somone it's the worst feeling in the world. I wish other shows, movies and games portrayed her kind of character as well as ds9 did.
I love the character of Kira. My favorite DS9 character and among my favorite Star Trek characters. She´s a badass, has done bad, maybe even horrible things and during the course of the series she gains a new perspective on her past and the Cardassians. Duet is an episode I still watch then and there and it´s still one of the most intense ones DS9 has to offer.
@@SirMarshalHaig Yeah Duet is one of star trek's greatest achievements imo. But Kira herself is not really the reason that episode is so well remembered honestly, it was the guy who guest stared as that cardassian.
The problem is while it may seem juvenile to you, everything Eddington said was right. Especially about the Federation being worse than the Borg. That's why I hate people who praise the Federation as some socialist utopia. It's nothing of the sort. It's one of the most twisted and perverse forms of oppression one can ever imagine. It's one where the oppressed will never know that they're slaves. Because while the Federation may offer liberties and a great deal of personal freedom, it strips the citizen of the right to not be part of the hive. Just like an animal in a zoo can mostly do whatever it wants...unless what it wants is to do is leave. This is to say nothing of the humanocentric racism of the Federation. How they look down on other cultures not part of the Federation collective and always seek to assimilate them into the fold. But, Eddington was right. And the Maquis are a prime example of how the Federation will, as a government, abandon and even turn on their own people for daring to step out of line and say they don't want to play ball by the Earth's rules.
@@DrForrester87 Life within the Fed is great, but if you live on it's edge.. The Fed will just cut you lose to save their own azzes when dealing with the Spoon Heads and Klingons. The question I always had was this, what about the Cardassian colonies that ended up in Fed space, did they jump planet and run from their former government ?
Former communist Russia and Iran does not put soldiers to guard their boarders that do not have families, just in case those men try to make a run for it.
It was said in TNG, " There are no Romulan defectors. " .. only Vulcan space merchants who are in fact Romulan spies.
Well they touched on Eddington's simplistic, melodramatic view of the universe.
Can't one be both a terrorist AND a freedom fighter? Look, let's cut to the chase: Kira used terrorist tactics. This alone makes her a terrorist. But she also WAS fighting a war to free her people. I don't think the two ideas are mutually exclusive as most people seem to. The real question becomes this: Is terrorism justified? And if so, when?
This.
The questions of "when is it justified?" and "how far is too far, how bloody is too bloody, how many civilians is too many?" are the kinds of question that simply don't have an answer. But they are the questions that separate "right" from "wrong" terror.
I can never look at something like the clip here of 9/11 without a swelling of anger and sadness, and I don't think that any outside reading of history will ever put it into the "acceptable" or "justified" category. But even there, those people that took those plane truly believed, honestly and wholeheartedly, that they were in right side. They were acts of unjustified terror, but the people that did it felt differently. If that can have a disparate opinion, how can an answer be reached on tge resistance to Nazi occupied France, or Ireland, or even the American Revolution? The point made in the _Next Generation_ episode is 100% on point. Had we lost the Revolution, had it instead been a failed civil war, Washington and Jefferson and Adams and Franklin, etc. would have been hanged as traitors and terrorists; and rightly so from that history's perspective.
I suppose that I don't really have a larger point than not only is there little to no line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"/"resistance"/"rebellion," but even the grey area that they all occupy is unclear.
“Terrorist” is invariably a label applied by those in power, by the people whom terrorist tactics are employed against. Ultimately, it’s the victor that gets to write the history. The Bajoran resistance managed to push out the Cardassians, so to the Bajorans and the Federation the Resistance are freedom fighters. To the Cardassians who were in power, the Bajoran Resistance were nothing more than terrorists. Terrorist and freedom fighter are ultimately the same thing, which it is is simply a matter of perspective.
I think there is a difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter regarding how they use violence and the motivation behind it. The difference lies not just in the eye of the beholder but also in practical reason.
There is a difference between ISIS Terrorists who slaughter primarily civilians in order to spread fear and William Wallace or Michael Collins - their prime target was not civilians but the oppressing party. They use violence but the motivation is not based on hate, religion, profit or idiology but to evoke a political change. If the desire for this political change is - compared to ethical standarts and the practical reason - justified, it is not terrorism but a fight for freedom, regardless what the opponents may suggest. It is very difficult to draw a line if the use of violence justifies the means even if you want to improve the quality of live but this line also defines the difference. The label terrorist is used far to often. A person who use violence against an unjust and oppressing system is not categorical a terrorist.
There are even groups who want to improve a condition but they turn into terrorists like the RAF. They crossed the line where the violence did not justify the means regarding practical reason and they had become ideological motivated later on.
The Maquis fights for freedom and justice and is therefore not a terrorist group BUT there a few members like Lon Suder who do not care about the cause and just enjoy killing. So he is a killer and could defined as a terrorist like every one with base motives crossing a line, but not the Maquis in general.
@@scaper8 "I can never look at something like the clip here of 9/11 without a swelling of anger and sadness, and I don't think that any outside reading of history will ever put it into the "acceptable" or "justified" category""
Did you know that the 9/11 highjackers are known within the Islamic world as "The Magnificent 19"?
@@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406 In small parts of it. Do not mistake them for a monolithic culture. Most do not share that view.
Every Star Trek video essay should include a "Major Kira was a badass" montage.
Yes, But also a religious fanatic.
That time Sisko casually used chemical weapons against a civilian colony was so weird.
Kira is so Op if she were a Klingon she would be Chancelor and Empress in one.
On that note if O'Brian would enjoy fighting i would bet he would be feared and reverted by the Klingons given how the Cadassians feared him
One really interesting thing about Kira's self perception is that she is always very insistent on the correct terminology. She always calls it terrorism and doesn't accept anyone trying to make it sound better.
my fav part of the eddington -sisko ordeal:
KIRA: The trilithium resin is dissipating throughout the biosphere. The Maquis are scrambling their transport ships. They're starting to evacuate.
EDDINGTON: Do you realise what you've done?
SISKO: I've only just begun. I'm going to eliminate every Maquis colony in the DMZ.
EDDINGTON: You're talking about turning hundreds of thousands of people into homeless refugees.
SISKO: ***That's right. When you attacked the Malinche you proved one thing, that the Maquis have become an intolerable threat to the security of the Federation, and I am going intend to eliminate that threat.
***
EDDINGTON: But think about those people you saw in the caves, huddled and starving. They didn't attack the Malinche.
SISKO: You should have thought about that before you attacked a Federation starship.
(Sisko turns his back on the Eddington hologram)
SISKO: Helm, lay in a course for Tracken Two, warp six. Commander, prepare two more torpedoes.
Sisko made a great terrorist.
Dalitas D he had no qualms about making innocent Cardassian civilians refugees as well, so Eddington is a hypocrite!
@@MrRedcarpet02Of course he was. The man was delusional, even as he fought a just cause. Compare with Kira who is very aware she has done horrible things, and have to live with the consequences.
Kira is awesome! Good reminder to watch the whole DS9 series again... been a few years!
In the Pale Moonlight--Sisko's involvement and feelings about what Garak did.
I should point out that in the episode "Journey's End", it's stated that the colonists knew their planets were disputed PRIOR to their colonization. Not only does that make me loose sympathy for the Marquis, but also the Federation. Instead of negotiating with the Cardassians, they allowed Federation citizens settle there and didn't immediately revoke their citizenship. That's the kind of thing imperialists do and not an "enlightened" civilization like what the Federation claims to be.
@Thelondonbadger Of course they can't stop the colonists, but the SECOND they stepped foot on contested soil, the Federation should have hade it clear they weren't authorised to do so and revoked their citizenship. Not treat them as Federation worlds until AFTER they've ceded the planets to Cardassia. If they were independent from the start, the colonists wouldn't have felt betrayed when the Federation suddenly abandoned them and it wouldn't look like they were illegally expanding into disputed territory.
@Thelondonbadger Because the US has agreed that the house is still on US soil. Say the US and China found an uninhabited island and aren't sure who it should belong to. If China sends people and treats them as if they were in their territory, they are basically claiming that territory as theirs in the eyes of the US.
@Thelondonbadger Whether they were sent by the Federation or not, it looks like they were from the Cardassian's POV, and unless they are even stupider than I think, the Federation knows it looks that way. The only way to make it not look like they are encroaching into other power's territories would be to make it illegal to colonise uninhabited planets claimed by both powers, and at the very least kick people out of the Federation if they try to do so. Since the Colonists are still citizens at the beginning of "Journey's End", they obviously didn't do that.
@Thelondonbadger But all the worst decisions were made before DS9 and the parasite infiltration. They shouldn't exile the colonists, but if a group of people say they want to live on a world claimed by another power, they should treat them as a third party if they want to live on those specific planets, since it's unclear if the Federation had any right to settle those worlds. All the grey areas afterwards are just natural consequences of them doing something they never should have done in the first place.
i have to say, i love Kira, no mstter what!!
SHE IS EXCELLENT!
@LordGroyper Excusing Dukat is basically like excusing Hitler.
@LordGroyper Hitler? Okay, you're a nutcase.
@@titusmccarthy memes man. The memes
I feel as though this is basically promoting the whole "ends justify the means" argument. The problem with this position is that everyone draws the line in a different place, and ultimately every academic argument is futile.
In the end when politics resorts to force, discussions on the morality of the issue are null and void, since violence becomes the only argument that matters. If we've reached that point, then the only moral argument I would make is to question whether we even any longer deserve the outcome that we want, since we've already degenerated into a society where moral discussions are irrelevant.
In the end, moral positions are just the frameworks we use to rationalise our selfish agendas, the moral high ground is a delusion. The people who pretend otherwise, and are willing to use violence (other than immediate self defence), are on a parr with history's worst tyrants and despots (who probably had the same mentality)
The stuff you guys produce is a master class on Star Trek and how it influences real life and vice-versa. Keep up the great work guys, it's excellent 👍
Wow, thanks! We will.
There was a recent book out by a Cogntive scientist named Hugo Mercier called "Not Born Yesterday." That brakes down the science of what and why we believe things, and frankly as much as I like Star Trek it dosen't have an affect on us. No media really dose. It might be a somewhat dull reflection of reality though.
A shame we never saw Hudson again after The Maquis, but I guess they made Eddington the main villain in that regard.
He's probably dead now. Along with Ro Laren and Thomas Riker.
I believe eddington mentioned he had been killed when he and Sisko went on their little mission together
@Leo Peridot It was when Voyager started getting data packets from the alpha quadrant. Chakotay gets a message that the Maquis was wiped out by the Dominion, most likely from the Founders infiltrating their ranks the way they had done with the Tal Shiar.
Very excited for part 2. The way the franchise noticeably changed in response to 9/11 and how it can be used as a reflection for what happened in the society of the United States has always been a very interesting topic for me.
Soon...
The bombing incident at World Trade Center in 1993 should brought red flags for Our FBI, CIA and State Dept. These were terrorists testing to see how Our Government would respond. Apparently. we stayed asleep until too late.
I've never seen this channel before, but I'm glad this video came up in my recommendations. That was fantastic. Subscribed, and looking forward to the next part.
Welcome aboard!
Check out our other essays :)
I did NOT expect a video about star trek to begin with a discussion of John Brown.
Around here, we like to surprise :)
It was amazing!
Recently I watched The Expanse series and first time I saw Drummer I saw character that radiated the energy of Kira Naris.
I can strongly recommend the novels. The saying "There's OPA and there's OPA" becomes very very relevant.
Re. How the viewer is suppose to see Kira.
I can tell you as a teen that grew up watching DS9, I took Kira as obnoxious. I wasn't particularly swayed by the Bajorans struggle because it felt omipresent. They were always victimized and it became part of the brown of the walls. I didn't take Kiras' struggle seriously because she was an absolute hothead who got the cast into trouble with her mouth more than once. I was undoubtedly still too young to understand the implications of the terrorism/occupation storyline, but its worth mentioning that as a kid I never felt like they implicitly say "She is one of the heroes and thus is correct in her cause." They highlighted how shortsighted she can be more than once.
Terrorism is a tactic. More often than not, it is used by those who may not be able to defeat their enemy on the fields of battle due insufficient force size. However, you may also see it used by a foe who would smash dissent. We may debate if the terrorism and guerilla tactics of the Bajorans and the Machi are justified, but remember, the Cardassians were guilty as well, thus raising the stakes.
8:57
I just realized that Picard is quoting Mao in that line
He is?
@@Duchess_Van_Hoof Yeah, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." is a famous Mao quote
Chakotay's home planet was literally supposed to be the same planet that Picard and Co. go to to try and move the native Americans off of it. And the starfleet academy instructor that teaches Ro Laren the extra tactical training before leaving to join the maquis (after which Ro Laren followed him and joined herself), that was Chakotay too. The writers have confirmed this. I always loved that part of it. The Maquis is really one of the only things that existed across all 3 90s trek shows, and that was intended from the beginning as a way to crossover the shows together by having that shared aspect.
20:59 This is completely untrue. Voyager and DS9 both give us an episode about the aftermath of their extermination.
An episode. more like a hand wave because they didn't know what else to do other than say it was over.
I would say, the difference between someone who fights for freedom and a terrorist is the selection of targets.
If someone select random civilian targets with the goal of civilian casulties, then it is terrorism. If someone attacks military personel and important administrative civilians, it might be considered a freedom fight.
I'm sure most people who took half an hour out of their lives to nerd out over an essay about terrorism in Star Trek already know, but I remember hearing once that Kira Nerys was originally meant to be the return of Ro Laren herself.. From what I remember, there was something that made the actress decide not to return, and so they had to adjust their plans.
I have never seen an entire episode of Star Trek but love Star Trek. Love these essays.
Really? Why? Some of them are quite good.
Absolutely fantastic content, as usual. This should be required learning in any geopolitical science course.
The cool thing about Voyager is that it showed that not all Maquis are bad like they were portrayed in DS9.
Great video, thank you. Recent developments have made me go back to DS9 which I never actually "completed"
A pinnacle of the franchise.
Y O U
B E T R A Y E D
Y O U R
U N I F O R M
*cowers
OMG welcome back brother!
unrelated to the topic of the video (and I applaud you for how well-executed this is on the whole) but it cracks me up when you do the voices of the people talking about the harper's ferry raid
Terrorism is still terrorism, even if the cause is just. Unlike the definition of murder, the definition of terrorism does not depend on the motivation of the terrorist.
Murder is defined as the deliberate, unlawful killing of a human by a human. If you kill someone by accident, even if you were extremely careless (criminally negligent) it is at most manslaughter, and may not even be a crime depending on the circumstance.
Kill someone deliberately, but legally (say in war or self-deference) again, not murder. Rather it would be justifiable homicide.
Terrorism is defined as an act of violence for some cause (political, religious ect). There is nothing there about lawfulness or justifiably.
It makes no difference if the act was justifiable. It is still terrorism.
By that reasoning, then, terrorism itself is a morally neutral term and all burden of morality lies in the motivation.
Why, then, not simply discontinue the use of a useless term like terrorism and cut to the root cause?
@@Coridimus The morality of *ALL* things is based on the motives.
However, terrorism is very rarely justifiable.
Just because it can be, in theory, be justified. That doesn't mean it can be justified in practice.
You should see the movie V for Vendetta.
@@erictaylor5462 i have seen it. Many times. Ive also ready the graphic novel 3-4 times.
I suspect we drew starkly different lessons from the narrative.
@@Coridimus I just realized I responded to the wrong comment. Sorry for the confusion.
@@erictaylor5462 no worries. Have a nice day
This so on point now that I’m binging DS9 during our national time off.
Calling Bajorans as "terrorists" is same as calling The French Resistance and all the Jewish people in concentration camps during WW2 as "terrorists" too. One must be careful while using such terminology, those "gray" areas can become semantic quicksands.
Can't wait for the second installment of this. Excellent work.
Coming soon!
This video is so well made that you instantly earned a subscriber from me. First video man, but I look forward to watching your backlog
Thank you and welcome aboard! Do check out some of the older stuff!
my favorite star trek channel when Im not watching star trek. Thank you!
What a great commentary on terrorism in Star Trek!
Watch out for part two!!
@@Trekspertise Looking forward to it, stay safe and healthy!
Love the Kira Nerys montage, can't wait for part II!
John Brown was one of the greatest human beings in the history of humankind. He knew he was going to die....and did it anyway. THAT was a GOD fearing man.
John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave
But his soul is marching on
Terrorism is just a method, or tool. It's not an inherently more evil tactic of warfare than invasion or occupation. The morality of terrorism depends on the morality of what your fighting for or against. The grey area only exists for moral relativists, and those who have an undeveloped theory of ethics.
Critics of Picard: “SiNcE WhEn HaS TnG BeEn AbOuT TeLePorTiNg NiNjA TeRoRiStS!?” 1. It’s not TNG and 2. Since TNG.
TNG had terrorists, but it wasn't about terrorists. Just like it had the borg but didn't center around the borg.
picard critics seem so fake in their supposed super fan status
So much of fan upset with Discovery and Picard, both, is about the push away from TV norms of the 20th century. These shows are CBS All Access's Game of Thrones response: the idea is high accessibility to an older, more sophisticated audience than other Treks. I've been so impressed by both the second season of Discovery and the first of Picard. This franchise has moved on ahead. Getting caught up in the comfortable past is something any classic 20th century Trek maker would also disagree with.
Critics of Picard: "This is poorly written, and doesn't seem like a faithful sequel to TNG."
NuTrek Defenders: "YoU juST hAtE tHe sPaCe nINja lEgOLAs loL!"
Dave N or as we call him in my house, Romulos.
Speaking specifically on Washington, who Crusher and Finn discussed, he wasn't afraid to do brutal things to achieve victory. Destroying Indian settlements aligned with the British was a military necessity, so he ordered it.
Welcome back!
Thanks!
DS9 was always my favourite but Voyager was what I grew up on.
it's worth remembering that sisco attacked the colonies in response to the marquise taking similar action against the cardasian colonies
Part two will be how Kurtzman and his cabal could be considered cultural terrorists?
Ooohhh snap. Shots fired.
this is fire, liked subbed
Welcome aboard!
Remember back when Trek was actually good?
.../sigh
This has probably been mentioned before, but with the definition of terrorism you've provided, Captain Sisco's action to poison a civilian planet to force mass migration is also a form of terrorism, if not genocide, since forced relocation is also a form of genocide.
Of course you can say the Marquis under Eddington's leadership is already doing that to Cardassian colonies, so Sisco's response is justified. However, Eddington would argue that the Cardassians were doing that to them first, so the Marquis response was equally justified.
Of course, Sisco came out the winner, so to many he is the "general" and not the terrorist. But I've always been deeply troubled by that entire arc.
To be fair, I think the point _is_ to be deeply troubled. The point, I think, is to come out saying, "None of that was _right!_ But they all had justification. So way all of it right? Some of it? None of it?"
@@scaper8 EXACTLY
Just dawned on me that Kira is a total tsundre. I just knew Kira before I knew the concept of a tsundre.
Great video once again, thanks I enjoyed it!
Our pleasure! Thank you for checking it out :)
Great video essay! Can't wait for part 2.
Thank you for this video! Your content is awesome.
I personally would not support terrorism. But, I did understand why Marques fought against Cardassia and Federation. Both Governments made Treaty without offering boarder colonys involvement in process. It's like a big corporation taking eminent domain over your house. And proceed to tear down while you're still living there.
Excuse me, just a correction... You said this episode was not broadcast in the British Isles.... It was because I saw it myself. This episode was shown on BBC2 on the 29th September 2007.
Well, yes, decades later.
Is Kira Nerys like George Washington? Of course not, she was a child soldier not a slaver.
Real good episode thank you!
Great piece
Thank you. This two-parter is one we are proud of.
The Irish reunification of 2024 only 4 years away now
Well, Brexit means the UK must have a hard border to the EU. The Good Friday Agreement requires borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to be open in order to preserve the peace...The Brits have done it to themselves.
How dare you cast John Brown as a fanatic, the man was a hero.
I remember Malcolm X saying he would work with John Brown. I shed a man tear that day....
To some
He was one of many sparks that started a fire. I find what he did reprehensible, but I applaud his motives.
Well I wonder what his motives would of been if he won at Harper's Ferry. Would he just of killed the Masters of the plantations? Or would he if killed the Masters wives & children too? (This statement is not an endorsement of slavery)
@@TheMrPeteChannelHis plan was a widespread slave rebellion accross the south. Plantations burned, slaves armed and so on.
If he would actively target children? No idea.
I have always loved Star Trek for its earnest exploration of moral complexity.
This video is fucking brilliant. Well done. Subscribed. x
Welcome aboard =)
thumbs down for newtrek clips. that alone is a terrorist act, no further video needed
Hi Pinkskin!
Great video, as always.
Comprehensive, jam-packed, entertaining and thought-provoking, as is the standard from #Trekspertise.
The topic is full of pit-falls and minefields. You use a term considered by some in Ireland to be contentious and politically-loaded: "The British Isles" in your point @8:13
However, the video cannot be faulted for that.
Liked and shared.
The ep was banned on BBC and RTE. The scene with the chat between Picard and Data was cut and the edited episode was broadcast on SKY 1.
Sinn Fein... Finn. Not pulling your punches, eh TNG? I also love the "...Irish unification of 2024" bit - 1) because it's something that would obviously get the episode pulled from the UK and they left that shit in the script anyway. 2) I'm going to lmfao when Data's little pseudo-history nod turns prophetic. The Economist literally put out an August issue with "A United Ireland - Could it Really Happen"? It's not an 'If' anymore - it's simply a 'when'. Demographically speaking, the writing is on the wall and Parliament has done little to endear itself to even the Unionists anymore - who so often talk of 'betrayal' by a country that's quickly becoming unable to sort out its own shit in its own backyard, let alone theirs. For better or worse, United Ireland will become a reality - not by 2024 most likely, but within my lifetime. Of that I have little doubt.
Going to rewatch this masterpiece of a two-parter on 9/11
A few take away thoughts though, I sort of prefer this tenor over the part two tenor. I partially think it is because I am more of a DS9 fan but also because I didn't grow up with any trek and I was 4 when the attack happened. For me, it seems like an event in the far distant past.
But no, it has only been 20 years. And those same invocations of terrorism seem to be all the more relevant after January 6th then many of us American's like to believe. It doesn't matter what age we are in either historical or contemporary; fantasy or sci-fi
Terrorism is here to stay and we ought to take a critical lens at it. Plus, these videos are easier to rewatch then all 14 seasons of DS9 and Voyager so I will just do that instead lol.
It's a difficult, weird thing to live through. But I thank you for the rewatch :)
Curious: what brought you into Trek?
@@Trekspertise Interesting question but basically, the big two reasons were my brother who I love alot and idolize. He is big into Trek and I remember once getting into a debate about why I (at the time) couldn’t get into trek because it is too realistic or something. Of course I was wrong, but comparing it to my ideal sci fantasy like Star Wars, I still like my stories to have fantastical elements.
He eventually got me to watch the 2009 films, which I think are pretty good and then I watched almost all the Q episodes in TNG. After that, I was hooked but later found out TNG was less my speed and DS9 (my favorite) and Voyager (underrated and overhated) are my big ones.
The second is much simpler, probably mentioned this earlier. I was having a writers block with my own sci fi. I dont use warp drive but I had the exploration element. I knew something didn’t quite click writing weekly so on a whim I watched DS9 about a year and a half ago.
Now, I think Trek has taught me more about writing as did many writers like Russel Bates, Micheal Piller and Ira. So I have a more positive and sometimes kind of personal opinion with trek.
I personally think modern trek is a mixed bag. I love Lower Decks, I dont like Picard. Havent seen Discovery yet, but mostly because of the time constraits in my final year at university.
Tldr: My brother got me into it and I wanted to improve my writing on both exploration and humanism. Trek taught me how to do both in a way that didnt feel preachy. Which is ironic because as you might know, alot of fans say trek is too political and I sort of just chuckle. Like, I don’t even know how to argue against it except watch DS9 and pay attention to the political symbolism.
But yeah, that is my story. If I ever republish my stories, my pen name is Nicol Terra. Same as my youtube, which I hope to do content for soon but not for trek. (I personally prefer animation over live action. Probably why Lower Decks shot up to my top 3 out of the like, 9 current trek series if I counted correctly.
Great episode. Keep making these!
There was an invasion on the Spanish autonomic Province of Puerto Rico in 1898, by the United States, followed by 50 years of imposed American Governors. One of those, Blanton Winship, ordered a massacre by the police in 1937, on an Palm Sunday day parade, some 19 unarmed nationalists were killed on the spot and close to 200 wounded, and scores of people rounded up by police, just for being suspected nationalists. In 1954 there was an attack on US Congress by a small group of nationalists. There was a gag law (ley de Mordaza) that prohibited the Puerto Rican Flag, the anthem and even talking about independence for Puerto Rico. Now the media in this island and the government is controlled by the Cuban exile and nationalists are still persecuted and killed (see the movie A Show of Force -Cerro Maravilla murders) by the authorities, police and FBI, latest was Filiberto Ojeda. Now you be the judge....
This was awesome!
Thanks!! We loved making it :)
@@Trekspertise seriously these videos are what I can't articulate to people as to why Star Trek is unique, it always (not always) has an important question to ask. Thank you.
Kira is a bit over written. Defeats numerous Klingons in hand to hand combat. With a rifle, it makes sense for her to win or tie, not hand to hand
Fascinating video fascinating subject
Thanks! Part two soon =)
The edition quality is insane!
Edition quality?
This be such a nice little listen if the BGM was nonexistent or much lower in colume.
As a British person the Cardassians remind me most of the British Empire. It makes me sick that glorifying the British Empire is still considered an acceptable thing to do. It shows that we haven't really evolved as much as a society as we like to tell ourselves.
I can sympathize with the Bajoran people both on a cultural level and personal level because the Bajorans in some ways remind me of my own people, Koreans who endured brutal occupation of the Japanese empire and were forced into sexual slavery through comfort women. The concentration camps, oppression of their spirituality is of course reminiscent of the holocaust that the Jewish people endured under the Nazis. Being both Jewish and Korean, the sufferings of Bajoran people and their struggle to rebuild their planet after years of Cardassian occupation is all too real.
A very brave analysis. Trek, at its best, is unafraid to open some cans of worms. To play with moral ambiguity and ask questions it doesn't necessarily answer (unlike certain franchises which prefer a straightfowrard good-versus-evil dynamic).
The question boils down to: are the citizens of a state ever justified in taking up arms against the state? (Complicated in times of occupation, when the "state" in question is external). As a Quaker, my answer would have to be "no", yet I'd find it very hard to argue with Mandela's decision to take up arms against Apartheid, or anyone who fought the Nazis. These complicated questions need to be asked and asked and asked again, because the conversation needs to happen.
Another question is: how does a terrorist know when what they are doing is justified? They all believe that they are, but some are deluded and/ or brainwashed. When can one trust oneself to make that decision?
I also recomment Malorie Blackman's Noughts and Crosses series.
Hi! Where can I find the essay by jay manning? thanks
I always thought religious Bajoran vs imperialist Cardasian conflict was a commentary on religious Afghan vs imperialist USSR conflict of the 80's?
Was major Kira originally supposed to be ensign Roa or am miss remembering some weird ass fan theory?
I think it was confirmed in one of the interviews that it was going to be her.
Well, I think Roa being there doesn't really make much sense, or rather, it's weaker than having someone who was a terrorist her entire life and only has any political or military rank because of her terrorist deeds (and doesn't really trust the federation) is much stronger. If you mean she would have ALSO been there, that is fine - it's someone to sort of feel caught in the middle, but I think everyone from the Federation being outsiders is a better thing.
BINARYGOD No I was simply saying that in the original concept for the show Roa was going to be the DS9 liaison officer for Bajor but the writers either went in a different direction or the actor turned it down.
It he’s a little odd that you never hear from Roa in DS9.
It's easy to sympathise with the Maquis and Bajorans. Have we ever seen Maquis commit terror acts against innocent civilians? Even Bajoran fight was centered on occupying forces on and around Bajor. Those are hardly realistic depictions of terror groups. Kind of a cop out.
and yet people say that the new picard series is nothlng like Star Trek
yet it always dealt with themes like that
It is so interesting that you end this science fiction commentary with the Twin Towers Affair. How sciency is your science fiction?
Can you build a 1360 foot skyscraper without figuring out how to distribute the steel and concrete down the structure? The bottom must be strong enough to support the weight of the top. Where is that data in the NCSTAR1 report?
This involves Potential Energy, the Conservation of Momentum and the Center of Gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower.
Many SF fans cannot handle that much science. In 1940 it only took 4 months to model the physics of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. No computers! LOL
Following the Israel/Hamas situation, I've been watching your work more and more on this topic. Thx!
It's a complicated tragedy over there :(
It is. And unfortunate. @@Trekspertise
Irish unification, 2024. Golly could still get murder for even bringing that up
Awesome 👏🏾
I always thought major Kira needed her ass kicked at least one time, not because I don't love the character but because it would be nice to see how she continuously grow stronger through hard knocks.
The thing that always bothered me was EVERYONE (Garak, Dukat, Dar'heel/Maritza, to name 3) called Kira a terrorist and she never corrected them and advised that she was a freedom fighter trying to retake her homeland (same as Maquis). So, if she was a terrorist, how did she get to be 2nd in command of a Federation space station? Answer, because she wasn't. Kira was an awesome character on this show and I think it's poor writing for them to let this terrorist thing not be challenged IN UNIVERSE.
@Classic Flix DS9 was a Cardassian built/run station that the Federation took over when the Cardassians left after the occupation. Not sure when/how it was ever a Bajoran station. I 100% agree with you on Kira. She should/could have had her own show. One of the most layered characters on that show.
@Classic Flix Ok. So I am slightly wrong it is Cardassian built as I stated (they had another identical one Empok Nor, as you know...episode when Garak was running around killing folks), but you are right after the occupation it became Bajoran, but the Federation ran it
As I understand it she killed civilians, as collateral damage if nothing else. And she isn't Eddington trying to delude herself into a hero in a fictional story.
Kirk was quite quick to turn to sabotage/terrorism against the occupation of Organia.