The Dumbest Thing Eddington Ever Did

[Mecha82]

The more I watch DS9, the more I agree with Eddington, though both characters are wrong in different ways. I believe Eddington did what he felt was right. Look at Our Man Bashir, how hard Eddington works to save the lives of Sisko and crew. I don’t think it was personal for Eddington until Sisko made it personal, and that probably hurt.

A recent rewatch of DS9 really highlighted for me the struggle the show had with the Maquis. They were right, but had to be antagonists to the "good guys" of DS9. Most of the Maquis plots had trouble working inside of that contradiction, even with DS9's willingness to say the good guys can sometimes be wrong.

It was not a struggle. That was the point of this entire story ark. Antagonists do not have to be "bad guys". The Maquis was right to fight for their homes. However, the Federation was also right to enforce a treaty that ensured peace with one of the major powers of the quadrant. It's not always a question of "Good vs Evil", of "Right vs Wrong". In politics, it generaly isn't...

Take Les Misérables. In the D&D alignment chart, Jean Valjean is clearly Neutral Good. His main antagonist, Inspector Javert, is not evil. He's Lawful Neutral. But their conceptions of what is "right" clash.

You have point there. DS9 really doesn't have black & white morality and it does add to things that it reminds people about B5. Both point of views are equally valid instead of having one point of view that we are supposed to think is one correct one. Yes Sisko is protagonist but that doesn't mean that his view is that one correct one because of it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

If you ask me, it's the smartest thing he ever did.

You either die a red shirt, or you live long enough to see yourself become a memorable Star Trek villain.

Very Machiavellian.

[Nealithi]

The more I watch DS9, the more I agree with Eddington, though both characters are wrong in different ways. I believe Eddington did what he felt was right. Look at Our Man Bashir, how hard Eddington works to save the lives of Sisko and crew. I don’t think it was personal for Eddington until Sisko made it personal, and that probably hurt.

A recent rewatch of DS9 really highlighted for me the struggle the show had with the Maquis. They were right, but had to be antagonists to the "good guys" of DS9. Most of the Maquis plots had trouble working inside of that contradiction, even with DS9's willingness to say the good guys can sometimes be wrong.

It was not a struggle. That was the point of this entire story ark. Antagonists do not have to be "bad guys". The Maquis was right to fight for their homes. However, the Federation was also right to enforce a treaty that ensured peace with one of the major powers of the quadrant. It's not always a question of "Good vs Evil", of "Right vs Wrong". In politics, it generaly isn't...

Take Les Misérables. In the D&D alignment chart, Jean Valjean is clearly Neutral Good. His main antagonist, Inspector Javert, is not evil. He's Lawful Neutral. But their conceptions of what is "right" clash.

You have point there. DS9 really doesn't have black & white morality and it does add to things that it reminds people about B5. Both point of views are equally valid instead of having one point of view that we are supposed to think is one correct one. Yes Sisko is protagonist but that doesn't mean that his view is that one correct one because of it.

Sisko pointed out that Earth is the Federation problem. It having been turned into a paradise. And it is easy to be a saint in paradise.
But Kira on the same episode Eddington deserted was aghast that the Federation was giving so much aid to a government that had been hostile to them. While a friendly government got a fraction. So yes to grey on gray mentality. But Eddington was full pomp mode when he left his message. It was meant to hurt.
The joker comparison I think still fits though. Eddington is not some ageless being or a military commander and regional governor. He was just a man. Lesser rank and with some of the same training as Sisko. So him beating Sisko hurt more. And there was a bit of Et tu' brute'? In there.

[Artabax]

The more I watch DS9, the more I agree with Eddington, though both characters are wrong in different ways. I believe Eddington did what he felt was right. Look at Our Man Bashir, how hard Eddington works to save the lives of Sisko and crew. I don’t think it was personal for Eddington until Sisko made it personal, and that probably hurt.

A recent rewatch of DS9 really highlighted for me the struggle the show had with the Maquis. They were right, but had to be antagonists to the "good guys" of DS9. Most of the Maquis plots had trouble working inside of that contradiction, even with DS9's willingness to say the good guys can sometimes be wrong.

It was not a struggle. That was the point of this entire story ark. Antagonists do not have to be "bad guys". The Maquis was right to fight for their homes. However, the Federation was also right to enforce a treaty that ensured peace with one of the major powers of the quadrant. It's not always a question of "Good vs Evil", of "Right vs Wrong". In politics, it generaly isn't...

Take Les Misérables. In the D&D alignment chart, Jean Valjean is clearly Neutral Good. His main antagonist, Inspector Javert, is not evil. He's Lawful Neutral. But their conceptions of what is "right" clash.

Javert's beloved "Peace Treaty" did not ensure Peace. The Treaty specified that Fed's duty is to genocide Maquis. The Treaty defined Cardassi will not openly declare War versus Fed UNTIL Fed completes its duty of genociding all Cardassi's enemies (NME). Surprise, surprise, once Javert completed his duty and genocided all of Cardassi's NME, Cardassi openly declared War versus Fed. What a surprise.

[Deledrius]

It was not a struggle.

It absolutely was, and you missed my point entirely by responding to something other than what I said.

[Actarus]

The more I watch DS9, the more I agree with Eddington, though both characters are wrong in different ways. I believe Eddington did what he felt was right. Look at Our Man Bashir, how hard Eddington works to save the lives of Sisko and crew. I don’t think it was personal for Eddington until Sisko made it personal, and that probably hurt.

A recent rewatch of DS9 really highlighted for me the struggle the show had with the Maquis. They were right, but had to be antagonists to the "good guys" of DS9. Most of the Maquis plots had trouble working inside of that contradiction, even with DS9's willingness to say the good guys can sometimes be wrong.

It was not a struggle. That was the point of this entire story ark. Antagonists do not have to be "bad guys". The Maquis was right to fight for their homes. However, the Federation was also right to enforce a treaty that ensured peace with one of the major powers of the quadrant. It's not always a question of "Good vs Evil", of "Right vs Wrong". In politics, it generaly isn't...

Take Les Misérables. In the D&D alignment chart, Jean Valjean is clearly Neutral Good. His main antagonist, Inspector Javert, is not evil. He's Lawful Neutral. But their conceptions of what is "right" clash.

Javert's beloved "Peace Treaty" did not ensure Peace. The Treaty specified that Fed's duty is to genocide Maquis. The Treaty defined Cardassi will not openly declare War versus Fed UNTIL Fed completes its duty of genociding all Cardassi's enemies (NME). Surprise, surprise, once Javert completed his duty and genocided all of Cardassi's NME, Cardassi openly declared War versus Fed. What a surprise.

What genocide? The treaty defined the border between the Federation and the Cardassian Union, which was left blurry after the Federation-Cardassian War. It defined a Demilitarized Zone, and worlds were exchanged between the two powers. The inhabitants of these worlds were offered to resettle. That's all the treaty said. The Maquis refused and attacked the Cardassians, often with the help of renegade Starfleet officers. The Federation had no choice but to stop them, and it's not a question of genocide.

[Actarus]

It was not a struggle.

It absolutely was, and you missed my point entirely by responding to something other than what I said.

I believe on the contrary that I answered exactly to what you said. You were saying that the show was struggling to present efficiently the fact that the Maquis were right but presented as antagonists to the Federation, the good guys. I simply answered that I do not agree with that assessment, that the core of that story ark was precisely that the Maquis had good reasons to rebel while the Federation had equally good reasons to uphold the treaty and stop renegade Starfleet officers that jeopardized the treaty. I believe that they did a good job to present that. There is a struggle indeed, but it was not about the writing or production. What I said about Les Misérables was to give an exemple where the antagonist is not "evil" or a bad guy. The Maquis are antagonists, but they are not bad guys.

[Steve]

As someone who has repeatedly voiced support for the Maquis, I have to say...

In this situation, you refer to genocide. And as was once said in a movie somewhere, "I do not think you know what this word means".

The Maquis are not (or at least were not) a nation or a religion. They were basically a bunch of settlers who had their homes given over to another state as part of a peace deal. We're not told the reasons the UFP wanted the exchange, since we're told some Cardassian colonies ended up on the UFP side of the DMZ. Just that it happened, and the UFP was going to transfer the settlers if they asked. They didn't and just wanted to be left alone, Cardassian settlers with covert government support started attacking them, things went to shit.

Now personally, I'm skeptical of Federation diplomacy, so I do figure some politicians on Earth, far from the frontier with little concern of the effort needed to carve out colonies, had the attitude of "They can just move!" And it's entirely possible the Federation had to make these horse-trades because they weren't willing to resist Cardassian aggressiveness (although one can argue it was also due to Wolf 359 and the need to restore the fleet). And the Cardassians are a nasty totalitarian police-state who see torture as an acceptable tool and consider criminal trials to be theater for promoting the State. So I'm very sympathetic to the Maquis.

But that doesn't mean I don't understand why Sisko had a duty to oppose them (and you'll note he was trying to just get the fighting to end in their introductory two-parter). And he certainly didn't commit anything identifiable as genocide.

Eddington, OTOH, was a menace to the very cause he wanted to promote. Not because he went over to it but because he made it about him. His ego, his need to be the hero, the clever leader who won the day, trumped the very real needs to consider the future. That's why he had the Maquis basically pass the red line when he, y'know, created a bio-chem weapon and unleashed it on Cardassian worlds. If ISIS or al-Qaeda or ETA or any other group did that in today's world, you can be damned sure the response would've been vicious, and Sisko's employment of chemical weapons to retaliate against Maquis colonies was justifiable (if still not a nice thing to do). Hell, it's probably still nicer than what the Cardassians would've done, and would do when they had Jem'Hadar backing! After all, Sisko warned them it was coming and let them escape.

In short, while his actions were morally questionable, especially given his personal feelings, it doesn't fall under "genocide", and using the term in this manner is ridiculous. Saying he did it to "dozens" of planets shows you're either completely making things up or don't remember a thing about the episode.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

If ISIS or al-Qaeda or ETA or any other group did that in today's world, you can be damned sure the response would've been vicious, and Sisko's employment of chemical weapons to retaliate against Maquis colonies was justifiable (if still not a nice thing to do).

Yes, but in Star Trek we must learn to live past our baser instincts that we have today.

[Steve]

Kirk's "I will not kill today" line still works well, but as stated, Sisko warned them before firing and did nothing to impede the evacuation, so he was hardly being ruthless. Unlike Eddington firing on a refugee ship to save his own ass after being the one to make first use of biochem weaponry.

TBH, I kinda wish they'd have made the Maquis an independent nation. It would make for an interesting story, about these former Federation colonists who broke away over the handing over of their worlds to an aggressive, totalitarian foe, managed a military victory despite the odds (aided of course by the Klingons wrecking the Cardassians), and declared their own state instead of asking to rejoin the Federation. It was clearly have been a multi-racial state given the various species in the Maquis. They would've been touchy and occasionally militant, probably arming up to deal with any Cardassian war of revenge, perhaps becoming a client of the Romulans or the Klingons but trying to avoid being suborned by either power. But the "Dominion gets foothold in the Alpha Quadrant" story took hold. Probably for the better in the long run.