At one point, Kira explains the difference between a Federation phaser rifle and a Cardassian disruptor in terms that make it clear that she's talking about the M-16 vs. the AK-47.
That comparision is a bit of a meme, but it doesnt really hold up to reality. M-16s major issues were stuff like lack of cleaning supplies and bad ammo. Otherwise, the M-16 was a pretty reliable and highly accurate design, assuming you take care of it. The M-4 today is even a pretty damn cheap rifle for what it does, more budget rifle than "luxury weapon". Compared to that, the "AK-47" people talk about is actually the AKM from 1959, a modernized version of the 1947 AK rifle. Sure that rifle is gonna be reliable after >10 years of fixing! Accuracy and range were always below the M-4s standards, though.
I think it's the nature of the politicization, in older Trek politics were protrayed with themes and lore while and the issues that were discussed were nuanced, in newer Trek it's only pop culutral slactivism pushed into your face
@@gyorkedani5531 yeah ill think it comes from comics where far left politics poisoned atmosphere there now even an hint of it gets spider sense ticling
The big difference is that, in the old days of Trek, they would ask complex moral questions and let the audience make up their own minds. Whereas modern Trek just force feeds you the answer, whether you would agree or not. But yes, DS9 was the best Trek
@@AeneasGemini You're right. I think its more a modern TV and Movie thing, than letting the audience decide for themselves. The episode where Sisko got the Romulans to join the war, at the end it's was up to you to decide, what he did was right or wrong. Now they ask you the question and answer the question themselves too. I think it all changed, like he said, after 911.
"Once Ro Laren moves on from the franchise the centrepiece of this becomes Kira Nerys" - Random fact: The Kira Nerys character was purposely written as a replacement for Ro Laren in DS9 after Michelle Forbes declined to play the character in DS9 and producers chose against recasting the role.
Well, a great choice! Recasting the role or even casting the original actor in Ro Laren would've made the Bajorans less...broad-feeling. Does that make sense? I'm glad she didn't take the role. And thanks for telling me this! :)
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.
in the TNG episode "High Ground"- it is not an "indirect reference" to the Troubles in Ireland- the leaders name is "FINN" the reference is you our faces!
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"
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"?
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.
Sisko’s reaction to Michael Eddington was ridiculous, especially when you consider how he let Calvin go, but Eddington’s rant was wrong. The Federation didn’t have a problem with all frontier colonists on the the UFP/Cardi border. The Federation had a problem with the Maqui possibly reigniting another large scale war. Whether or not the Maqui really were a threat to “the peace” was debatable. It was made clear on DS9 that the Cardassian Empire was in decline after their withdrawal from Bajor. What did Gowron once say about a toothless grinch cat trying to frighten people with its roar? Between the invading Klingons and the civil unrest on Cardassia, the Maquis were doing the Federation a favor by heaping more trouble on the Cardassian’s plates. The UFP should’ve just disavowed the Maqui on paper and looked the other way.
Sisko was not realy against the marquie in my books but super pissed that eddigton tricked him making him very human. Also going with siskos history he became very bitter after Wolf... developing the difiant? He took many things very personal. Heck as convoluted as the ending might be it shows him leaving behind all that anger in him
@Leo Peridot The Bajorans were pretty F*up themselves, but the plot twist is the Worm hole aliens/ Prophets not so much as chose Sisko to be their emissary but they " made " him. Also since Sisko was an outsider, he was not born into any of the Bajorans' rival political houses.
@The Critic Why not just “ignore the problem?” The Maqui were only a problem because the Federation was supposedly wary of Cardassia’s ability to wage another war, but by the time the Dominion War rolled around, Cardassian military power and their society in general had waned, which was why Dukat got in bed with the Dominion, in the first place. If the Maqui wanted to help speed that decline along or die trying, then why not let them? I thought at one point that the Maqui offered to renounce their UFP citizenship to maintain their colonies.
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.
Anyone else think that Sisko's real beef with Eddington is not the he 'betrayed his uniform' but because he hung Kasidy Yates out to dry forcing Sisko to arrest her? Could explain why Sisko didn't give a crap about the Maquis once Eddington was captured.
Also he abused his position before getting tired of his job and selling out his own ally to get a large promotion in the terrorist group. Other joined them after turning in their uniform. Eddington abused his position and then jumped ship when he got bored of wanted a promotion as Odo was going to keep being in charge of security. It was hard to see Eddington as anything but an opportunist jerk.
@@qwefg3 Maybe I'm giving the writers too much credit in my thinking Edington was a Maquis plant from the beginning (and simply didn't just make him one for plot convenience). It would make sense that he would want Odo's job so he would know everything going on. Still, I agree that he was an opportunistic... Well, I wouldn't have used the word 'jerk'. My point, tho, is why did Sisko, who had previously expressed sympathies for the Maquis and did not chase after Calvin Hudson, a close friend, who more or less did the same thing? In fact, he described the Maquis as "angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with the Federation approval or not." What would make him go from that to firing trilithium laced torpedoes into the atmosphere of a colony if not a personal vendetta? (edited to correct Lt. Cmdr Hudon's first name)
His friend quit star fleet once the Maquis became offical. Eddington used his position of power to steal valuables and information before tossing one of his own allies into the grinder just to escape. One abused the job while the other quit after they became official as he thought star fleet would help once it was revealed but that the cardasian government was aiding the attacks against federation colonies. Also it was a personal grudge as Sisko had did a lot of things by personal grudges or personal motivations. This was just one of the more noticeable incidents.
I mean, the big difference between George Washington and John Brown is that Brown wasn't super successful during his time. Also, Washington was a slave owner and went to surprisingly convoluted lengths to keep his slaves and acquire more. There's a lot of myths about how 'nice' certain 'freedom fighters' from U.S. history were.
Well the founding fathers are part of Americas creation myth and are basically secular Gods. It doesn't matter if they were good people or not, just that the population see them a certain way.
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
We are throughly pleased with how you've covered this topic, especially with the experience of "rarely" seeing others who cover any Star Trek topics, for the most part ignore what you are in the midst of fully exploring here. Thank you everso much for all you're doing here. Someone over at my end here expressed that how you covered the topic of terrorism utilizing Star Trek lore should be presented and discussed in classrooms. This statement was initially debated, but ultimately agreed to by all of us, starting from the sheer fact that it was so energetically, yet respectfully debated. Thanks, again for all you've done here. We look forward to part 2/the second half. True love for this channel.
Kira is a badass not because she was a terrorist or freedom fighter, she was self radicalized child soldier who managed to put her life back together. From anger, fear and hatred to loving a man who can literally be anything. That kind of journey takes serious courage.
Rho not being part of the show was one of the best things that happened to DS9; Not that the character was bad. (I actually liked her.) More so that the Kira character was sooo strong and had so much potential for character development that the Starfleet influenced Rho couldn't have. Plus, Siko, being developed as he was in the show probably wouldn't have tolerated Rho as a second due to her betrayal of her oath to Starfleet.
@Leo Peridot I could be wrong, but I got the impression from Voyager that all of the Ex-Starfleet on the Chakotay's crew resigned their commisions formally first, then joined the Maquis later. Rho, on the other hand, not only defected while still active duty, but also in the middle of an undercover operation. She broke not only her personal oath but blew the operation as well. This puts her on another level of duplicity.
@Leo Peridot Jonathan Frakes switched to primarily directing, while also doing some voice roles. Colm Meaney is a respected actor who occasionally pops up in shows and movies.
@@DrBreadstick The actor who played Rho Laren did not want to continue the part on DS9 because she did not want to commit to making multiple Comic Con and other public appearances (which was required of the cast). She wasn't sure she could handle the public spotlight so frequently.
Dude your content deserves so much more views and likes and subs bruh. This is high quality trekkie content. Thank you a lot bro and good work on your content!
I don't think John Brown would have denied being a terrorist I think he would have argued that the people he terrorized, people devoted to the oppression and abuse of human beings for profit, deserved to be terrified. And I would agree.
It was my latest rewatch of DS9 when I was most impressed with Major/Colonel Kira's character, especially watching Season 7. Her montage starting at 21:40 took this video from a Thumb's Up to my Favorite Videos playlist!
Terrorism you, you said sometimes the outcome is in eye of the beholder. In an episode of Deep Space Nine a clerk claiming to be a once in charge of a labor camp said and described "what you call genocide, I call a days work"
Kyle, your work continues to grow in so many ways. I am in awe of you. Your analysis is of academic quality, the narration perfectly balanced, and the subject matter explored in great depth. Yet you make it all very human and understandable. DS9 is a rich series to mine for gems like this. Really hope someone comes up with the $$$ to re-master it someday.
This is a fantastic essay, I really enjoyed your insights and analysis. Your script, editing, clip choice, and graphics were all particularly outstanding. Looking forward to part 2!
I think that the whole Marquis storyline interrogates people's attachments in the Israel/Palestine conflict. There isn't a 1-to-1 correlation between any real world state and the actions of a particular fictional state in Trek (although the federation is always an America stand in and rarely presented as having anything other than honest motives) but the confluence of religion, terrorism, state repression and living with occupation mean I can never see a DS9 episode that touches on these themes without having the Levant (for want of a less politically charged name for the region) in mind. (and people complain about new trek being to explicit in it's political commentary)
@Leo Peridot I see where you're coming from but like I said I don't think there's a 1-to-1 correlation. The timeline doesn't match to Irish struggle the way it does the Palestinian one for example. I think there are also specific parallels with events or political aspects of: East Bengal, the Mau Mau, the Balkan wars of the 1990s, and the Balkans wars of the 1910s, if you look for them.
@Leo Peridot But on the other hand there's no Bajoran civil war, like there was in '22/'23 in Ireland, there's no direct analogy for the UDF/UDV or RUC in the Bajorian storylines, there's no part of Bajor where the Cardassians were a majority of the population so they opted to remain part of Cardassian leading to a partition of Bajor. There's some things that match the Irish situation, there's others which don't. The coupling of religious and ethnic identity that we get with Bajor feels to me far more like an analogy for the Israeli identity than it does the Irish one. But there will always be some parallels which apply and others which don't. Bajor as Israel in 1950 seems like the closest we get to a 1-1 analogy, and the parallels there seem way more obvious than anything in Ireland to me, but then I'm way more familiar with Ireland than I am with Israel so perhaps the inconsistencies seem more obvious in the Irish case than the Israeli one to me. I don't really know what you mean by lucky charms or Irish Bishops, whilst the Church has always held a lot of soft power in C20th Irish politics they were never the direct political actors we get in DS9. There aren't any TDs who are or have been Priests for example, as far as I know. Certainly no Taoiseach or President. Ireland is a pluralistic western democracy, the Irish tend to be a bit more religious than the UK France and Germany but less so than the US, about the same as Israel for what it's worth. news.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx
Ah "the Israelis are actually Nazi's" meme. I dont recall Cardassia offering the Maquis numerous peace deals that would let both sides keep territory. I also dont recall the territory in question being the Cardassian ancestral homeland that they were expelled from 2000 years ago. Lastly, the Cardassians were the aggressors in that case and it was ISRAEL who agreed to the UN partition plan
@@ayylmao2190 You misunderstand me. I think most people watching the show would recognise that in many ways the Bajorans are coded Jewish. Your jumping to conclusions though rather demonstrates my point that interrogating people's unconscious bias is what the show is doing.
Terrorism in science fiction shows is always interesting. You get the radical types who fight for what they believe and then you get antagonists who just kill.
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.
Wow. This video is soo good! I can't believe it's been years of watching star trek to have this video show up in my recommended videos to watch! This was an automatic click the bell video for me 👍 great work!
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.
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.
Very good video, can't wait for part 2. I miss the days when Trek covered such complex topics with more bipartisan ambiguity. Kira has always been one of my favorite characters and it's because of how she was used as a foil for Starfleet's ideals. She's such a well written character I can handwave the fact she beats people up while being 8 months pregnant.
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.
What I like about those older shows was it was harder (at least for me, born in 2000) for me to tell what they were referencing with the stories. It seemed natural within the shows to do those things
This is an extraordinarily well-crafted meditation on a difficult topic in Trek. My hat's off to the creators for handling it so deftly. It's certainly made me have an even deeper appreciation for Star Trek's ability to tackle nuanced subjects in a way you never fully expect, but find thoroughly entertaining and thought-provoking. I loved Part Two as well (which arguably hit the hardest emotionally).
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.
You left out the best part of crusher's conversation with Finn. Also the entire episode of Duet from DS9 explores this subject very well. It's one of the top 10 trek episodes.
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.
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)
Terrorism isn't defined by whether you agree with the perpetrators or not, it's about their methodology: targetting civilians and infrastructure with the intent of causing terror. The French Resistance of WW2 were a terrorist organisation, even though we may agree with their methods. Che Guevarra was a terrorist. Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist. Some in the American War of Rebellion were arguably terrorists, but George Washington likely not since he assembled armies which fought a conventional military campaign in the field.
It's too bad DS9 didn't do more with the Maquis. The Maquis were created for Voyager and the DS9 writers wanted to focus on the Dominion so they ended up sidelining the Maquis. Unfortunately, Voyager didn't really pick up where DS9 left off and squandered the opportunity. It would have been nice if they had driven home the fact that the Maquis had very different societies than the rest of the Federation. There's an entire generation of people who grew up on those colonies and didn't have the same beliefs as the rest of the Federation or access to the same level of technology. It always seemed to me like the tragedy of the situation was that the Federation and Maquis didn't do enough to explain and understand each other's position. The Federation treated the Maquis as if they were just like other Federation worlds when in reality, they had very different beliefs and cultures. The Maquis couldn't understand why the Federation would ever trust the Cardassians even with constant schemes and betrayals by the Cardassians, and they lost faith in the Federation. It would have also been nice for them to explore why the Federation was willing to fight a 20+ long year war with the Cardassians to keep those colonies but then so easily gave them away in a peace treaty.
Frankly, the Maquis were a bunch of idiots. They fought to the death over planets that weren't their homeworlds, just worlds their species moved to, and in a period where technology allowed unlimited resources regarding food and shelter. They could've moved to other M-Class planets for literally no cost.
I think they addressed it well by having the Dominion obliterate them when the Cardassian's made the request to defeat all enemies of the empire when those two powers aligned. The Maqui had zero chance whatsoever countering the Dominion forces and so the story unfolded very accurately.
@Leo Peridot Sisko knew the Maquis had the time to evacuate. I'm not saying he was right in forcing people to relocate by destroying their homeworld, but he was never ready to kill even Eddington himself, just capture him and sentence him to life in prison.
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.
I think it's really funny that Worf says the Maquis should be hunted and killed for being terrorists when he himself joined a terrorist group on Risa. Not to fight an oppressive regime, but because tourists on Risa were having too much fun.
@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.
I think even this definition is too specific. I often think about the Joker in The Dark Knight, when I think about terrorism. "Some folks just want to see the world burn." His ideology, his politics, was one in which he committed acts simply to strike terror in the citizens of Gotham City. He wanted people to fear for their lives. In terms of the effect of terrorism, his brand of violence achieves the same goal as "letting the terrorists win."
@Classic Flix that's kind of my point, that his raison d'etre was chaos, whether it's called an ideology or not. I should have placed the word in quotation marks to clarify that point.
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 am from West Virginia, and was taught about Harpers Ferry in school. I was very surprised to see it in your video, and to see how it relates to the Star Trek universe.
i was rewatcing DS9 recently and i was surprised how much they practically glorify terrorism with kira et al - but like you suggest and trek implied, the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is really just whose side youre on and when the HECK are you gonna do some insight into PICARD!!
It also shows the moral ambiguity. Bajorans will dying by the millions during the Cardassian occupation, so when Kira said they were fighting for survival, she was not joking, and that forces you to question whether or not they truly qualify as terrorists. In many countries, killing in self defence is not murder or manslaughter, so the question is whether or not that applies to groups as well as individuals. If as a group you are fighting to save your very lives, does the moniker "terrorist" truly fit, or is it a way of falsely implying criminality in a context where the harm being done justifies the response?
@@Trekspertise because i do luv the quality of your work, i wont complain about the its glacial pace of its production and release - oooops i just did! lol - but should we expect soon or soonish?
Personally, I always saw the Bajorans and the Maquis as analogies to the IRA, with the Cardassians representing the British Empire. The Bajorans representing the pre-civil war IRA and the Maquis representing the post civil war IRA (Both the anti-treaty IRA and the provisional IRA). The Bajorans were oppressed and outmatched by the Cardassians, so as their only option they turned to terrorism, similar to how the Irish were eventually given no option but to resist British Tyranny with terrorism. The Bajoran resistance are regarded as heroes, just like the old IRA are. Now, the Maquis are a particularly interesting analogy. The federation, in order to end the war with the Cardassians, gives up some of their territory near the Cardassian border in a treaty so controvercial it causes a terrorist force to fight against it. Sound familiar? After the Irish War of Independence, a treaty was reluctantly signed which ended the war and gave us near independence, but we had to give up the Northern 6 counties and some ports. This caused the IRA to split into the pro and anti treaty IRA, and thus began the darkest time in Irish history, the civil war. And this wasn't just 2 geographic parts of a country fighting, no, this was brother against brother, neighbour vs neighbour, friend vs friend. Eventually the anti-treaty forces surrendered, well, half of them, the other half eventually formed the provisional IRA, the ones you remember from the troubles in the North. Just like how the Maquis are considered much less heroic and even villainous when compared to how the Bajoran resistance is viewed, the provo IRA are considered the same when compared to how the old IRA is viewed.
That's utter nonsense and completely offensive to all the families of innocent people murdered by Irish killers. Britain didn't strip-mine Ireland, the comparison is thoroughly bogus. The Irish Republic has been around for a century. Terrorism in Northern Ireland was largely committed by criminals - criminals who are still involved in drug dealing, murder and human trafficking. And IRA terrorism was largely funded by the USA.
@@psammiad I mean, my comment barely mentioned the provos, it was about the IRA of the war of independance and civil war 100 years ago. But yeah, I agree, the provisional IRA were indescribably horrible and disgusting, everyone involved in the troubles for that matter was. I compared them to the Maquis, you know, the organisation that used biological warfare on civilians because they were Cardassians. And as for the other notion no, the British didn't strip mine Ireland, but ye did heavily exploit it for its resources. The British cut down our forests to fuel their industrial revolution. They seized our land and forced us into surfdom to help feed the ever growing empire, continuing to take food at the same rate even when our people who grew the food were starving in a famine. They brought our language and our culture to its knees, a scar that is still very much present to this day. We were considered inferior, a drunken, violent people who required being ruled over, lest we destroy ourselves. So now, do you see why I find the Cardassians an apt comparison?
TNG and DS9 did Terrorism correctly, in a compelling way. Enterprise handled it in a rather pedestrian way...but sadly still more intelligent than Kurtzman Trek. Star Trek into Darkness was the franchise killer.
16:58 And then they found out that the problem with severing yourself from the big tree, is that suddenly you're surrounded by wolves. 17:01 Sisko deserves an in-universe medal for not exploding at Eddington for that.
This is great content. As a bored Ph.D. student in Philosophy in lockdown, I could not hope for better content than what you are creating. You could see that research was done to create it. Thanks, really.
I definitely would have included the Circle story-line from DS9. Many revolutionary movements have a real problem after winning (or even in the middle of the fight) between "patriots" like Kira compared to the real extremists who want their perfect world and won't let anything stand in their way, even their own people. Syrian Civil War, the Irish post-independence war...lots of real world models.
This is what I have to say about terrorism as a tool of liberation of the downtrodden, the oppressed and the exploited: "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror"
"Evolution of 'The Terrorist' Through Media" It was a terrible first draft of art and media dissertation I later dropped because I was honestly in over my head with the subject matter. Coincidentally my second attempt at a dissertation was about sci-fi media conveying our current and possible future relationships with robots and androids, with a focus on personhood which you just so happen to have two videos on that would have helped IMMENSELY! So again, where were you 6 years ago?! Lol
Great video, though I've always seen the Bajoran terrorist movement more akin to the Mujaheddin in the Soviet Afghan war, chiefly because the Mujaheddin succeeded in ousting the soviets from Afghanistan (with covert support from the US, and in the Star Trek Dominion War books "behind enemy lines" one of the Bajoran characters whom I'm drawing a blank on had Star Fleet special operations give his cell intelligence and replicators during the occupation.) Whereas aside from the Warsaw uprising, and the Belski Partisans, there was no singular unified Jewish movement of armed resistance against Nazi Occupation on the Afghan tribes achieved. Plus the aftermath of the Cardassian occupation saw the same instability that Afghanistan suffered from post Soviet withdrawal, sadly in Afghanistan's case it collapsed into civil war where in Star Trek with the help of Capatain Sisko, the Bajorans avoided a Taliban like faction from taking power.
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!"
Star trek are way to forgiving of terrorism. I prefer the treatment of the topic in Babylon 5 with the Narn and Centauries. I grew up in a red zone for terrorist attacks in the 90s, and I found that Babylon 5 showed a much more realistic down to Earth :p view with real life characters that responded and talked like real people. In ST it's all drama and the characters are caricatures in comparison.
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
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😂😂😂😂😂
At one point, Kira explains the difference between a Federation phaser rifle and a Cardassian disruptor in terms that make it clear that she's talking about the M-16 vs. the AK-47.
Do you happen to know what episode that is from?
@@TheHippotail I don't recall--she's talking to Gul Dukat's daughter as they're preparing a resistance movement.
VonShnitzel It’s “Return to Grace”
That comparision is a bit of a meme, but it doesnt really hold up to reality. M-16s major issues were stuff like lack of cleaning supplies and bad ammo. Otherwise, the M-16 was a pretty reliable and highly accurate design, assuming you take care of it. The M-4 today is even a pretty damn cheap rifle for what it does, more budget rifle than "luxury weapon".
Compared to that, the "AK-47" people talk about is actually the AKM from 1959, a modernized version of the 1947 AK rifle. Sure that rifle is gonna be reliable after >10 years of fixing! Accuracy and range were always below the M-4s standards, though.
@Belisarius I wonder. Often with stuff like this, its very easy to draw romanticised analogies that just fall apart if you look more closely.
Funny people complain Star Trek is too political, when that's what Star Trek was built on. DS9 is and always be my favorite Star Trek.
Ours, too.
I think it's the nature of the politicization, in older Trek politics were protrayed with themes and lore while and the issues that were discussed were nuanced, in newer Trek it's only pop culutral slactivism pushed into your face
@@gyorkedani5531 yeah ill think it comes from comics where far left politics poisoned atmosphere there now even an hint of it gets spider sense ticling
The big difference is that, in the old days of Trek, they would ask complex moral questions and let the audience make up their own minds.
Whereas modern Trek just force feeds you the answer, whether you would agree or not.
But yes, DS9 was the best Trek
@@AeneasGemini You're right. I think its more a modern TV and Movie thing, than letting the audience decide for themselves. The episode where Sisko got the Romulans to join the war, at the end it's was up to you to decide, what he did was right or wrong. Now they ask you the question and answer the question themselves too.
I think it all changed, like he said, after 911.
"Once Ro Laren moves on from the franchise the centrepiece of this becomes Kira Nerys" - Random fact: The Kira Nerys character was purposely written as a replacement for Ro Laren in DS9 after Michelle Forbes declined to play the character in DS9 and producers chose against recasting the role.
Well, a great choice! Recasting the role or even casting the original actor in Ro Laren would've made the Bajorans less...broad-feeling. Does that make sense? I'm glad she didn't take the role. And thanks for telling me this! :)
It would've been great if they had gotten her back for a guest spot on DS9, maybe with an episode revolved around Ro Laren and Kira.
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
Starting with John Brown, eh? Strong opener.
I think of all the series, DS9 handled terrorism the best in showing the good, the evil and the gray.
Excellent quarantine martial.
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.
"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*
An extremely nuanced video. I wish more people could see this and star trek in general
Thanks! Part two is going to be bananas!
in the TNG episode "High Ground"- it is not an "indirect reference" to the Troubles in Ireland- the leaders name is "FINN" the reference is you our faces!
Very Trek to be that on the nose.
a reference to fenian a slur and badge of honour of the irish republican movement.
Finland?
@@JohnSmith-xm3bp Sinn Fein. Finn.
Kira is awesome! Good reminder to watch the whole DS9 series again... been a few years!
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
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.
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
That time Sisko casually used chemical weapons against a civilian colony was so weird.
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.
Sisko’s reaction to Michael Eddington was ridiculous, especially when you consider how he let Calvin go, but Eddington’s rant was wrong. The Federation didn’t have a problem with all frontier colonists on the the UFP/Cardi border. The Federation had a problem with the Maqui possibly reigniting another large scale war.
Whether or not the Maqui really were a threat to “the peace” was debatable. It was made clear on DS9 that the Cardassian Empire was in decline after their withdrawal from Bajor. What did Gowron once say about a toothless grinch cat trying to frighten people with its roar? Between the invading Klingons and the civil unrest on Cardassia, the Maquis were doing the Federation a favor by heaping more trouble on the Cardassian’s plates. The UFP should’ve just disavowed the Maqui on paper and looked the other way.
Sisko was not realy against the marquie in my books but super pissed that eddigton tricked him making him very human. Also going with siskos history he became very bitter after Wolf... developing the difiant? He took many things very personal. Heck as convoluted as the ending might be it shows him leaving behind all that anger in him
@Leo Peridot The Bajorans were pretty F*up themselves, but the plot twist is the Worm hole aliens/ Prophets not so much as chose Sisko to be their emissary but they " made " him. Also since Sisko was an outsider, he was not born into any of the Bajorans' rival political houses.
Leo Peridot because their acts were risking war. The Cardassians still had a strong military after the war with the Feds.
@The Critic
Why not just “ignore the problem?” The Maqui were only a problem because the Federation was supposedly wary of Cardassia’s ability to wage another war, but by the time the Dominion War rolled around, Cardassian military power and their society in general had waned, which was why Dukat got in bed with the Dominion, in the first place. If the Maqui wanted to help speed that decline along or die trying, then why not let them? I thought at one point that the Maqui offered to renounce their UFP citizenship to maintain their colonies.
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.
Every Star Trek video essay should include a "Major Kira was a badass" montage.
Yes, But also a religious fanatic.
Anyone else think that Sisko's real beef with Eddington is not the he 'betrayed his uniform' but because he hung Kasidy Yates out to dry forcing Sisko to arrest her?
Could explain why Sisko didn't give a crap about the Maquis once Eddington was captured.
Also he abused his position before getting tired of his job and selling out his own ally to get a large promotion in the terrorist group. Other joined them after turning in their uniform.
Eddington abused his position and then jumped ship when he got bored of wanted a promotion as Odo was going to keep being in charge of security.
It was hard to see Eddington as anything but an opportunist jerk.
@@qwefg3 Maybe I'm giving the writers too much credit in my thinking Edington was a Maquis plant from the beginning (and simply didn't just make him one for plot convenience). It would make sense that he would want Odo's job so he would know everything going on. Still, I agree that he was an opportunistic... Well, I wouldn't have used the word 'jerk'.
My point, tho, is why did Sisko, who had previously expressed sympathies for the Maquis and did not chase after Calvin Hudson, a close friend, who more or less did the same thing? In fact, he described the Maquis as "angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with the Federation approval or not." What would make him go from that to firing trilithium laced torpedoes into the atmosphere of a colony if not a personal vendetta?
(edited to correct Lt. Cmdr Hudon's first name)
His friend quit star fleet once the Maquis became offical. Eddington used his position of power to steal valuables and information before tossing one of his own allies into the grinder just to escape.
One abused the job while the other quit after they became official as he thought star fleet would help once it was revealed but that the cardasian government was aiding the attacks against federation colonies.
Also it was a personal grudge as Sisko had did a lot of things by personal grudges or personal motivations. This was just one of the more noticeable incidents.
qwefg3 plus he wasn’t a DMZ colonist, so it’s not hung to do with him.
I mean, the big difference between George Washington and John Brown is that Brown wasn't super successful during his time. Also, Washington was a slave owner and went to surprisingly convoluted lengths to keep his slaves and acquire more. There's a lot of myths about how 'nice' certain 'freedom fighters' from U.S. history were.
Well the founding fathers are part of Americas creation myth and are basically secular Gods. It doesn't matter if they were good people or not, just that the population see them a certain way.
I miss Ro so much. I hope the novels treated her well.
They do! Reading through the various Relaunch series now =)
@@Trekspertise nice! I am glad to hear that.
@@Trekspertise didn't she end up hooking up with quark on a rebuilt deep space nine?
Yo, I'm pretty sure she died when the Dominon wiped out the Maquis.
I always imagined that she will become a badass Admiral like Helena Cain!
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
We are throughly pleased with how you've covered this topic, especially with the experience of "rarely" seeing others who cover any Star Trek topics, for the most part ignore what you are in the midst of fully exploring here.
Thank you everso much for all you're doing here.
Someone over at my end here expressed that how you covered the topic of terrorism utilizing Star Trek lore should be presented and discussed in classrooms. This statement was initially debated, but ultimately agreed to by all of us, starting from the sheer fact that it was so energetically, yet respectfully debated. Thanks, again for all you've done here. We look forward to part 2/the second half.
True love for this channel.
Kira is a badass not because she was a terrorist or freedom fighter, she was self radicalized child soldier who managed to put her life back together. From anger, fear and hatred to loving a man who can literally be anything. That kind of journey takes serious courage.
I am curious how DS9 would have been different if Ensign Rho had been part of the show
@@DrBreadstick My understanding is the actor didn't want to take part
Rho not being part of the show was one of the best things that happened to DS9; Not that the character was bad. (I actually liked her.) More so that the Kira character was sooo strong and had so much potential for character development that the Starfleet influenced Rho couldn't have. Plus, Siko, being developed as he was in the show probably wouldn't have tolerated Rho as a second due to her betrayal of her oath to Starfleet.
@Leo Peridot I could be wrong, but I got the impression from Voyager that all of the Ex-Starfleet on the Chakotay's crew resigned their commisions formally first, then joined the Maquis later. Rho, on the other hand, not only defected while still active duty, but also in the middle of an undercover operation. She broke not only her personal oath but blew the operation as well. This puts her on another level of duplicity.
@Leo Peridot Jonathan Frakes switched to primarily directing, while also doing some voice roles. Colm Meaney is a respected actor who occasionally pops up in shows and movies.
@@DrBreadstick The actor who played Rho Laren did not want to continue the part on DS9 because she did not want to commit to making multiple Comic Con and other public appearances (which was required of the cast). She wasn't sure she could handle the public spotlight so frequently.
The world needs more "Kira Nerys being a badass" montages
AKA every Kira scene ever
Dude your content deserves so much more views and likes and subs bruh. This is high quality trekkie content. Thank you a lot bro and good work on your content!
Thanks so much! We live making them :)
I don't think John Brown would have denied being a terrorist I think he would have argued that the people he terrorized, people devoted to the oppression and abuse of human beings for profit, deserved to be terrified. And I would agree.
His soul goes marching on.
Yeah, Brown would probably have argued that terrorism itself isn't inherently an evil idea, but is dependent on the cause it's being used to further.
It was my latest rewatch of DS9 when I was most impressed with Major/Colonel Kira's character, especially watching Season 7. Her montage starting at 21:40 took this video from a Thumb's Up to my Favorite Videos playlist!
Terrorism you, you said sometimes the outcome is in eye of the beholder. In an episode of Deep Space Nine a clerk claiming to be a once in charge of a labor camp said and described "what you call genocide, I call a days work"
Superbly edited, and a well thought out episode. Always well worth the wait.
Kyle, your work continues to grow in so many ways. I am in awe of you. Your analysis is of academic quality, the narration perfectly balanced, and the subject matter explored in great depth. Yet you make it all very human and understandable. DS9 is a rich series to mine for gems like this. Really hope someone comes up with the $$$ to re-master it someday.
I appreciate how you mention that Star Trek is a Multiverse before you post footage of STP and STD. Thank you.
Orphanlast, That was a good save.
This is a fantastic essay, I really enjoyed your insights and analysis. Your script, editing, clip choice, and graphics were all particularly outstanding. Looking forward to part 2!
Wow, thank you!
I think that the whole Marquis storyline interrogates people's attachments in the Israel/Palestine conflict. There isn't a 1-to-1 correlation between any real world state and the actions of a particular fictional state in Trek (although the federation is always an America stand in and rarely presented as having anything other than honest motives) but the confluence of religion, terrorism, state repression and living with occupation mean I can never see a DS9 episode that touches on these themes without having the Levant (for want of a less politically charged name for the region) in mind.
(and people complain about new trek being to explicit in it's political commentary)
@Leo Peridot I see where you're coming from but like I said I don't think there's a 1-to-1 correlation. The timeline doesn't match to Irish struggle the way it does the Palestinian one for example. I think there are also specific parallels with events or political aspects of: East Bengal, the Mau Mau, the Balkan wars of the 1990s, and the Balkans wars of the 1910s, if you look for them.
@Leo Peridot But on the other hand there's no Bajoran civil war, like there was in '22/'23 in Ireland, there's no direct analogy for the UDF/UDV or RUC in the Bajorian storylines, there's no part of Bajor where the Cardassians were a majority of the population so they opted to remain part of Cardassian leading to a partition of Bajor. There's some things that match the Irish situation, there's others which don't.
The coupling of religious and ethnic identity that we get with Bajor feels to me far more like an analogy for the Israeli identity than it does the Irish one. But there will always be some parallels which apply and others which don't. Bajor as Israel in 1950 seems like the closest we get to a 1-1 analogy, and the parallels there seem way more obvious than anything in Ireland to me, but then I'm way more familiar with Ireland than I am with Israel so perhaps the inconsistencies seem more obvious in the Irish case than the Israeli one to me.
I don't really know what you mean by lucky charms or Irish Bishops, whilst the Church has always held a lot of soft power in C20th Irish politics they were never the direct political actors we get in DS9. There aren't any TDs who are or have been Priests for example, as far as I know. Certainly no Taoiseach or President. Ireland is a pluralistic western democracy, the Irish tend to be a bit more religious than the UK France and Germany but less so than the US, about the same as Israel for what it's worth.
news.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx
@Leo Peridot have a thumbs up for ''just a TV show'
Ah "the Israelis are actually Nazi's" meme. I dont recall Cardassia offering the Maquis numerous peace deals that would let both sides keep territory. I also dont recall the territory in question being the Cardassian ancestral homeland that they were expelled from 2000 years ago. Lastly, the Cardassians were the aggressors in that case and it was ISRAEL who agreed to the UN partition plan
@@ayylmao2190 You misunderstand me. I think most people watching the show would recognise that in many ways the Bajorans are coded Jewish.
Your jumping to conclusions though rather demonstrates my point that interrogating people's unconscious bias is what the show is doing.
Terrorism in science fiction shows is always interesting. You get the radical types who fight for what they believe and then you get antagonists who just kill.
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
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.
Wow. This video is soo good! I can't believe it's been years of watching star trek to have this video show up in my recommended videos to watch! This was an automatic click the bell video for me 👍 great work!
Thanks for watching! Welcome aboard :)
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.
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.
Worth every cent of $17.01 a month. Thank you Kyle and team! Looking forward to part two!
You are a benevolent Q!!
I love Kira's "you were all legitimate targets" bit in Duet. If you had any illusions about her past in the resistance, that scene shatters them.
Well, they were. Or would you have done differently in her place?
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 was your most thoughtful episode. really great work can't wait for part 2. really made me think about trek which is always welcome
Very good video, can't wait for part 2. I miss the days when Trek covered such complex topics with more bipartisan ambiguity. Kira has always been one of my favorite characters and it's because of how she was used as a foil for Starfleet's ideals. She's such a well written character I can handwave the fact she beats people up while being 8 months pregnant.
Glad you enjoyed it!
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 :)
Thanks for this. I had forgotten how deep ST NG/DS9/V characters were compared to any show we get nowadays.
What I like about those older shows was it was harder (at least for me, born in 2000) for me to tell what they were referencing with the stories. It seemed natural within the shows to do those things
This is an extraordinarily well-crafted meditation on a difficult topic in Trek. My hat's off to the creators for handling it so deftly. It's certainly made me have an even deeper appreciation for Star Trek's ability to tackle nuanced subjects in a way you never fully expect, but find thoroughly entertaining and thought-provoking. I loved Part Two as well (which arguably hit the hardest emotionally).
Thanks. We thought it was a good topic. Trek can still surprise us.
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.
You left out the best part of crusher's conversation with Finn. Also the entire episode of Duet from DS9 explores this subject very well. It's one of the top 10 trek episodes.
this video is so good I had to watch it twice, just in case I missed anything
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.
I love Kira so much. This video really did her justice. Thank you!
She is our favorite :)
I was like, where's part two? and then I realized you only put this out like 2 weeks ago... Cannot wait for the next installment. Very well done.
Thank you for watching :)
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)
Great video, thank you. Recent developments have made me go back to DS9 which I never actually "completed"
A pinnacle of the franchise.
Solid material - can’t wait for part 2 of this essay.
Thank you for watching! Part two soon...
Terrorism isn't defined by whether you agree with the perpetrators or not, it's about their methodology: targetting civilians and infrastructure with the intent of causing terror. The French Resistance of WW2 were a terrorist organisation, even though we may agree with their methods. Che Guevarra was a terrorist. Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist. Some in the American War of Rebellion were arguably terrorists, but George Washington likely not since he assembled armies which fought a conventional military campaign in the field.
It's too bad DS9 didn't do more with the Maquis. The Maquis were created for Voyager and the DS9 writers wanted to focus on the Dominion so they ended up sidelining the Maquis. Unfortunately, Voyager didn't really pick up where DS9 left off and squandered the opportunity. It would have been nice if they had driven home the fact that the Maquis had very different societies than the rest of the Federation. There's an entire generation of people who grew up on those colonies and didn't have the same beliefs as the rest of the Federation or access to the same level of technology.
It always seemed to me like the tragedy of the situation was that the Federation and Maquis didn't do enough to explain and understand each other's position. The Federation treated the Maquis as if they were just like other Federation worlds when in reality, they had very different beliefs and cultures. The Maquis couldn't understand why the Federation would ever trust the Cardassians even with constant schemes and betrayals by the Cardassians, and they lost faith in the Federation.
It would have also been nice for them to explore why the Federation was willing to fight a 20+ long year war with the Cardassians to keep those colonies but then so easily gave them away in a peace treaty.
Frankly, the Maquis were a bunch of idiots. They fought to the death over planets that weren't their homeworlds, just worlds their species moved to, and in a period where technology allowed unlimited resources regarding food and shelter. They could've moved to other M-Class planets for literally no cost.
The Maquis were created in TNG, not Voyager.
@Leo Peridot No, it's not anything like that at all. Are you implying the Maquis are invaders? Cause they're not.
I think they addressed it well by having the Dominion obliterate them when the Cardassian's made the request to defeat all enemies of the empire when those two powers aligned. The Maqui had zero chance whatsoever countering the Dominion forces and so the story unfolded very accurately.
@Leo Peridot Sisko knew the Maquis had the time to evacuate. I'm not saying he was right in forcing people to relocate by destroying their homeworld, but he was never ready to kill even Eddington himself, just capture him and sentence him to life in prison.
this is probably one of the best videos you've ever made, congrats!
Thanks for checking it out!
Miss your videos so much! Thank you for this, again amazing work
Certainly? Thank you for watching :)
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.
Insightful and with a flawless presentation! Looking forward to part II!
I think it's really funny that Worf says the Maquis should be hunted and killed for being terrorists when he himself joined a terrorist group on Risa. Not to fight an oppressive regime, but because tourists on Risa were having too much fun.
"Vacation is for dorks, when do I get to punch people?" That was such a terrible episode lol.
And he gets off without even a demotion, and learns nothing.
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.
I think even this definition is too specific. I often think about the Joker in The Dark Knight, when I think about terrorism. "Some folks just want to see the world burn." His ideology, his politics, was one in which he committed acts simply to strike terror in the citizens of Gotham City. He wanted people to fear for their lives. In terms of the effect of terrorism, his brand of violence achieves the same goal as "letting the terrorists win."
@Classic Flix that's kind of my point, that his raison d'etre was chaos, whether it's called an ideology or not. I should have placed the word in quotation marks to clarify that point.
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!
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 am from West Virginia, and was taught about Harpers Ferry in school. I was very surprised to see it in your video, and to see how it relates to the Star Trek universe.
It is an interesting event that still has much to teach us.
Also, WV is a beautiful place.
i was rewatcing DS9 recently and i was surprised how much they practically glorify terrorism with kira et al - but like you suggest and trek implied, the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is really just whose side youre on
and when the HECK are you gonna do some insight into PICARD!!
It also shows the moral ambiguity. Bajorans will dying by the millions during the Cardassian occupation, so when Kira said they were fighting for survival, she was not joking, and that forces you to question whether or not they truly qualify as terrorists. In many countries, killing in self defence is not murder or manslaughter, so the question is whether or not that applies to groups as well as individuals. If as a group you are fighting to save your very lives, does the moniker "terrorist" truly fit, or is it a way of falsely implying criminality in a context where the harm being done justifies the response?
@@tavdy79
as i said freedom fighter or terrorist is label applied by which side youre fighting on -
We will be doing a Picard season one review.
@@Trekspertise
because i do luv the quality of your work, i wont complain about the its glacial pace of its production and release - oooops i just did! lol - but should we expect soon or soonish?
@Thelondonbadger Wrong, wrong and wrong. Dukat was simply completely delusional about his role as supreme slavemaster.
THIS MAY BE SOME OF THE BEST MADE CONTENT ON TH-cam PERIOD...
Glad you liked it. More where that came from ;)
Def check out our other channel :)
Personally, I always saw the Bajorans and the Maquis as analogies to the IRA, with the Cardassians representing the British Empire. The Bajorans representing the pre-civil war IRA and the Maquis representing the post civil war IRA (Both the anti-treaty IRA and the provisional IRA).
The Bajorans were oppressed and outmatched by the Cardassians, so as their only option they turned to terrorism, similar to how the Irish were eventually given no option but to resist British Tyranny with terrorism. The Bajoran resistance are regarded as heroes, just like the old IRA are. Now, the Maquis are a particularly interesting analogy. The federation, in order to end the war with the Cardassians, gives up some of their territory near the Cardassian border in a treaty so controvercial it causes a terrorist force to fight against it. Sound familiar? After the Irish War of Independence, a treaty was reluctantly signed which ended the war and gave us near independence, but we had to give up the Northern 6 counties and some ports. This caused the IRA to split into the pro and anti treaty IRA, and thus began the darkest time in Irish history, the civil war. And this wasn't just 2 geographic parts of a country fighting, no, this was brother against brother, neighbour vs neighbour, friend vs friend. Eventually the anti-treaty forces surrendered, well, half of them, the other half eventually formed the provisional IRA, the ones you remember from the troubles in the North. Just like how the Maquis are considered much less heroic and even villainous when compared to how the Bajoran resistance is viewed, the provo IRA are considered the same when compared to how the old IRA is viewed.
More likely to be another area of the world, the best way to see would be too look at the backgrounds of the writers.
That's utter nonsense and completely offensive to all the families of innocent people murdered by Irish killers. Britain didn't strip-mine Ireland, the comparison is thoroughly bogus. The Irish Republic has been around for a century. Terrorism in Northern Ireland was largely committed by criminals - criminals who are still involved in drug dealing, murder and human trafficking. And IRA terrorism was largely funded by the USA.
@@psammiad I mean, my comment barely mentioned the provos, it was about the IRA of the war of independance and civil war 100 years ago. But yeah, I agree, the provisional IRA were indescribably horrible and disgusting, everyone involved in the troubles for that matter was. I compared them to the Maquis, you know, the organisation that used biological warfare on civilians because they were Cardassians.
And as for the other notion no, the British didn't strip mine Ireland, but ye did heavily exploit it for its resources. The British cut down our forests to fuel their industrial revolution. They seized our land and forced us into surfdom to help feed the ever growing empire, continuing to take food at the same rate even when our people who grew the food were starving in a famine. They brought our language and our culture to its knees, a scar that is still very much present to this day. We were considered inferior, a drunken, violent people who required being ruled over, lest we destroy ourselves. So now, do you see why I find the Cardassians an apt comparison?
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.
TNG and DS9 did Terrorism correctly, in a compelling way. Enterprise handled it in a rather pedestrian way...but sadly still more intelligent than Kurtzman Trek. Star Trek into Darkness was the franchise killer.
Thanks in no small part to the fandom abandoning Beyond when it was a massive step back in the right direction.
@@Jokie155 beyond is trash...picard rocks though
@@PeterParker-yg6fc Picard is the worst of them all. I got it for free on amazon and still feel robbed.
I really enjoyed this video. Thanks for the content. Subscribed.
WELCOME ABOARD!!
16:58 And then they found out that the problem with severing yourself from the big tree, is that suddenly you're surrounded by wolves.
17:01 Sisko deserves an in-universe medal for not exploding at Eddington for that.
Eddington was right.
This is great content. As a bored Ph.D. student in Philosophy in lockdown, I could not hope for better content than what you are creating. You could see that research was done to create it. Thanks, really.
Certainly! Thanks for watching :)
Check out the rest of our stuff, too. And part.two for this video is on the way.
I definitely would have included the Circle story-line from DS9. Many revolutionary movements have a real problem after winning (or even in the middle of the fight) between "patriots" like Kira compared to the real extremists who want their perfect world and won't let anything stand in their way, even their own people. Syrian Civil War, the Irish post-independence war...lots of real world models.
Oh, its coming in part two...
This is what I have to say about terrorism as a tool of liberation of the downtrodden, the oppressed and the exploited:
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror"
4:19 startling close to Khan’s visor in WoK
Where were you when I was doing my dissertation 6 years ago lol This video was so insightful! I'm gunna check out the rest of your content!
Welcome aboard!
What was the dissertation?
"Evolution of 'The Terrorist' Through Media"
It was a terrible first draft of art and media dissertation I later dropped because I was honestly in over my head with the subject matter. Coincidentally my second attempt at a dissertation was about sci-fi media conveying our current and possible future relationships with robots and androids, with a focus on personhood which you just so happen to have two videos on that would have helped IMMENSELY!
So again, where were you 6 years ago?! Lol
Sorry we were late :(
But the topics sound interesting!
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
This is really high quality and intelligent analysis, you deserve way more views my dude.
Thanks! We love doing it :)
Y O U
B E T R A Y E D
Y O U R
U N I F O R M
*cowers
I hate it when I find something that I like so much that has a part two that is not out yet... sad panda.
Soon...
Great video, though I've always seen the Bajoran terrorist movement more akin to the Mujaheddin in the Soviet Afghan war, chiefly because the Mujaheddin succeeded in ousting the soviets from Afghanistan (with covert support from the US, and in the Star Trek Dominion War books "behind enemy lines" one of the Bajoran characters whom I'm drawing a blank on had Star Fleet special operations give his cell intelligence and replicators during the occupation.) Whereas aside from the Warsaw uprising, and the Belski Partisans, there was no singular unified Jewish movement of armed resistance against Nazi Occupation on the Afghan tribes achieved. Plus the aftermath of the Cardassian occupation saw the same instability that Afghanistan suffered from post Soviet withdrawal, sadly in Afghanistan's case it collapsed into civil war where in Star Trek with the help of Capatain Sisko, the Bajorans avoided a Taliban like faction from taking power.
I think The Circle were Bajor's Taliban.
@@alastairmciver6220 Precisely.
Absolutely fantastic content, as usual. This should be required learning in any geopolitical science course.
Remember back when Trek was actually good?
.../sigh
Outstanding video which helps to explain part of the reason why DS9 is my favorite Star Trek series.
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.
7:02 *the banality of casual cruelty*
*this video was excellent on many, many levels...a lot to think about to be sure*
Thanks for watching! Part two coming soon...
Star trek are way to forgiving of terrorism. I prefer the treatment of the topic in Babylon 5 with the Narn and Centauries. I grew up in a red zone for terrorist attacks in the 90s, and I found that Babylon 5 showed a much more realistic down to Earth :p view with real life characters that responded and talked like real people. In ST it's all drama and the characters are caricatures in comparison.
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