TNG - The Ensigns of Command

This forum is for discussing Chuck's videos as they are publicly released. And for bashing Neelix, but that's just repeating what I already said.
Jonathan101
Captain
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:04 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by Jonathan101 »

CMWaters wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:37 am Is it weird that I see Gosheven's denial of wanting to leave in a slightly different light nowadays with a certain real world, very real incident we're dealing with that they didn't in the 1990s? Only we don't have a Data to make that forceful a point at the end.

[Look at what's bolded if you don't get what I mean.]
I mean, in fairness, there is a difference between ignoring a pandemic that has been spreading globally and ongoing for two or three years, and not believing a total stranger who just came down from the sky to tell them that their whole civilisation has days to live with no evidence.

You could easily do the same story from the POV of the colonists and play it like the Starfleet Officer may or may not be telling the truth- you could swap Data with an unknown officer or perhaps even make it Lore and have "Data" be genuinely trying to deceive the colonists for some nefarious purpose.
User avatar
CharlesPhipps
Captain
Posts: 4911
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by CharlesPhipps »

Linkara wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:51 am In all these forced relocation stories, it always boils down to two issues: cultural destruction and theft of property. The problem with comparing it to real life forced relocation in history is that 9 times out of 10 it's done for the sake of racism/prejudice/etc. i.e. these lives are less important because they are not the same as our in group so they can be destroyed en masse. The cultural devastation follows FROM the physical extermination because there's no one to carry on the culture or said culture is beaten down via forced assimilation into the oppressing culture.

But in these Trek examples, all the relocations are being done to either protect them or in the case of Insurrection, a natural resource that is beneficial to people in a time of war, basically an example of eminent domain - the government is seizing private property for presumably a greater good and the compensation is in the form of moving their entire settlement to a different planet. It can be argued that immortality itself has BECOME a part of their culture by virtue of there being no worry about aging, but by the same token that's not necessarily a culture when these are not descendants carrying on a culture from a distant past, but rather most of these are the same people who first arrived to settle it. Their culture changed once, it can change again.

And that brings us to the Maquis and the Native Americans. Because changing the location of their home will not destroy their culture (admittedly, the Native Americans argued that it would because of their spiritual beliefs, but arguably they cannot prove that it would in a tangible sense), it comes down to a matter of seizure of their property. And thus we have why the ethos of this episode clashes with that of the other two - the idealized Roddenberry future says that property is irrelevant, that we don't hold value to material possessions anymore. Sure, we want stuff but to give up one's life for property is absurd - Data's assertion at the end: "This is just a thing. Things can be replaced. Lives cannot." Whereas once we get to the Native Americans and the Maquis, they argue that their property, their homes have a tangible value that should not be taken from them because it belongs to them. Despite the fact that the technology exists to recreate all the physical objects of their colonies, the Maquis argue "We don't care, it's our property regardless and you can't have it" and the Native Americans argue "It took us 200 years to find this place and when we did, it mattered to us on a spiritual level so it holds value to us beyond just another location."

I don't know, I think I'm just rambling here but I find it fascinating the different thought processes of the writers and what they feel is important values to the culture of the future.
Great insights, Linkara.

I think that a lot of fans try to make a square peg fit into a round hole, though, with these forced resettlement stories, though. They want to make a clear 100% statement on an issue there really isn't an answer to.

Part of why the Maquis were interesting as a story arc in Deep Space Nine (someone failed to realize that the source of conflict in Voyager is completely irrelevant when planning that series out) was because there was no way to paper over the situation or make an agreement that would satisfy everyone.

As with the "Ensigns of Command", the communities and homes that were built by the Maquis were things that they had invested much of their lives in building. Eddington points out that shops, families, neighborhoods, and so on can't all be replicated and even if they could be then all that people have built as their lives' work is gone.

These people went to the planets to build a colony because they felt it would be their own way of making something meaningful versus staying on Earth to do nothing but sip wine as well as eat soul food (thank you, Ensign Mariner). Taking all of that away is essentially invalidating their experiences and attachment to a place and home.

The thing is that both in EOC and the Maquis, the moral rightness of this position is going to/does get everyone killed because neither the Sheliak or Cardassians care about the rightness of the cause. Part of why I think both plots work very well is because its a case of Trek being extremely cynical (or at least realistic). The ending of the Maquis plot is the Dominion kills every man, woman, and child on all of those colonies.

Exactly as Data predicted with this one.

I totally believe Starfleet was wrong to try to force them to relocate and they were right to want to fight back but the consequences were horrific. Because there's no guarantee that the morality of your cause will protect you from horrible consequences. Quite the opposite historically.
User avatar
CharlesPhipps
Captain
Posts: 4911
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by CharlesPhipps »

Jonathan101 wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:05 pmI mean, in fairness, there is a difference between ignoring a pandemic that has been spreading globally and ongoing for two or three years, and not believing a total stranger who just came down from the sky to tell them that their whole civilisation has days to live with no evidence.

You could easily do the same story from the POV of the colonists and play it like the Starfleet Officer may or may not be telling the truth- you could swap Data with an unknown officer or perhaps even make it Lore and have "Data" be genuinely trying to deceive the colonists for some nefarious purpose.
It is interesting to compare the colonial leader and Eddington. Eddington and this guy are full of the belief that he's in Insurrection and that they are protecting the poor disadvantaged colonists from the evil Starfleet working with a hostile alien race. However, they're actually in a much grimmer story where all they lead them to is genocide.

Which is why I think "Ensigns of Command" and Deep Space Nine handled it better.

Hell, Dances with Wolves vs. Avatar. Its very-very VERY much wrong what is happening. However, a military victory is not possible.
User avatar
Madner Kami
Captain
Posts: 4044
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:35 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by Madner Kami »

Is life more valuable than material things, more valuable than even immaterial things like a culture? Undoubtably, yes. But I think this layer obscures the real problem in the matter: Do you have a right to force someone to do something against their will? Do people have a right to live their life as they want to live it, even if what they want to do is something suicidally stupid?

I tend to think that the answer to that question is: Yes. The only responsibility an outsider or society has is, to make sure the person in question understands what it is doing, the consequences, the irreversability of some of their choices, so naturally there are some individual outliers, like patients with mental health issues and so on.

Now it stands to reason that a kinda medieval society like the one in "Homeward" simply isn't capable of understanding the implications of their choices, but the Maquis? The Masterpiece Society? Those Amerindians? These people here? The Maquis at least you can reason that they are technically Federation Citizens, so there's a special responsibility and relation, but where is the impetus to force any of them to do something against their will, even if their choices are terminal?
"If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?
- xoxSAUERKRAUTxox
Jonathan101
Captain
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:04 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by Jonathan101 »

Madner Kami wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:47 pm Is life more valuable than material things, more valuable than even immaterial things like a culture? Undoubtably, yes. But I think this layer obscures the real problem in the matter: Do you have a right to force someone to do something against their will? Do people have a right to live their life as they want to live it, even if what they want to do is something suicidally stupid?

I tend to think that the answer to that question is: Yes. The only responsibility an outsider or society has is, to make sure the person in question understands what it is doing, the consequences, the irreversability of some of their choices, so naturally there are some individual outliers, like patients with mental health issues and so on.

Now it stands to reason that a kinda medieval society like the one in "Homeward" simply isn't capable of understanding the implications of their choices, but the Maquis? The Masterpiece Society? Those Amerindians? These people here? The Maquis at least you can reason that they are technically Federation Citizens, so there's a special responsibility and relation, but where is the impetus to force any of them to do something against their will, even if their choices are terminal?
Well, they should probably be informed that there IS a choice, even if that choice is "leave or die".

"The society" does not make choices; the individuals who are part of that society do. The leaders shouldn't be allowed to condemn the rest to death while pretending (even to themselves) that it is some kind of collective decision. In this episode, al Data did was convince them that if they DID stay and fight, they would be utterly wiped out- he didn't actually force them to leave, and while he ruined their aquaduct system in the process it is pretty unimportant if they are all going to be destroyed by hostile aliens anyway.

From the perspective of the Federation, allowing this colony to be wiped out without doing anything sets a terrible precedent- for instance, the Cardassians might use it to ask why Starfleet is getting involved in genocides that don't concern them when they have been perfectly happy to stand aside before; conversely, the leadership would be condemned by the public for allowing such a travesty to happen.

The only time the Federation actually forced colonists to leave against their will was in Insurrection, and they were portrayed as being morally wrong for doing so. In these other episodes, the Federation applies varying levels of pressure, but nowhere do they force people to leave or change their ways- it is external circumstances that lead to that.
User avatar
Madner Kami
Captain
Posts: 4044
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:35 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by Madner Kami »

Jonathan101 wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:58 pmFrom the perspective of the Federation, allowing this colony to be wiped out without doing anything sets a terrible precedent- for instance, the Cardassians might use it to ask why Starfleet is getting involved in genocides that don't concern them when they have been perfectly happy to stand aside before; conversely, the leadership would be condemned by the public for allowing such a travesty to happen.
Except the Federation didn't stand by and watched. The Federation swooped in and told the settlers what is going to happen and offered an alternative, as well as negotiating with the Sheliak on behalf of these settlers, protecting them, creating a way out of an inevitable situation.

And even if the leaders want to stand and fight, nothing forces the population to stay and fight. If the leaders want to fight, let them. Just like in the Masterpiece Society in the end. Those who want to go, get a temporary living quarter on a luxury space-cruise-liner. Those who insist, may swing a broom angrilly towards the spaceship cleansing the planet with a heat-ray.
Last edited by Madner Kami on Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?
- xoxSAUERKRAUTxox
Jonathan101
Captain
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:04 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by Jonathan101 »

Madner Kami wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pm
Jonathan101 wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:58 pmFrom the perspective of the Federation, allowing this colony to be wiped out without doing anything sets a terrible precedent- for instance, the Cardassians might use it to ask why Starfleet is getting involved in genocides that don't concern them when they have been perfectly happy to stand aside before; conversely, the leadership would be condemned by the public for allowing such a travesty to happen.
Except the Federation didn't stand by and watched. The Federation swooped in and told the settlers what is going to happen and offered an alternative, as well as negotiating with the Sheliak on behalf of these settlers, protecting them, creating a way out of an inevitable situation.

And even if the leaders want to stand and fight, nothing forces the population to stay and fight. If the leaders want to fight, let them. Just like in the Masterpiece Society in the end. Those who want to go, get a temporary living quarter on a luxury space cruise liner.
The leaders might be forcing the population to stay and fight / die- what will the Federation do if they say "no-one is leaving?" or if the leaders withhold the information?

The latter is what happened in this episode- Data explained the situation to the leadership and he was asked to leave, and when he started telling the rest of the population what was happening Data was knocked out, so Data took more drastic action. If he simply walked away, even if he somehow took a few refugees (which was logistically difficult) he would still be condemning the rest to death.

There are thousands of colonists on this world and their impending doom is days away- it isn't logistically possible or reasonable to expect the whole society to digest and debate the facts before they are annihilated.

Are you saying that the Federation SHOULD have stood by and done nothing?
User avatar
clearspira
Overlord
Posts: 5649
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:51 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by clearspira »

The Sheliak threat isn't explained well enough for me. Are they comparable with the Federation? Because we never hear of them again. It seems to me that the episode points to them being just some small time regional power who are threatening the big boys of the galaxy. I really cannot help but think that in any other episode the solution would have been to shoot the Sheliak and call it a day. They are about to kill 15,000 Federation citizens after all so it is very much a self-defence judgement call.
This episode would have been much improved with the Cardassians or Romulans. With them, it is clearly established why a military option is unacceptable and you can imagine the Federation signing some silly treaty with them.

I agree with Chuck. This is an underwhelming episode. The stakes are poorly laid out and relies on the characters not acting the way they normally would.
Jonathan101
Captain
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:04 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by Jonathan101 »

clearspira wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:28 pm The Sheliak threat isn't explained well enough for me. Are they comparable with the Federation? Because we never hear of them again. It seems to me that the episode points to them being just some small time regional power who are threatening the big boys of the galaxy. I really cannot help but think that in any other episode the solution would have been to shoot the Sheliak and call it a day. They are about to kill 15,000 Federation citizens after all so it is very much a self-defence judgement call.
This episode would have been much improved with the Cardassians or Romulans. With them, it is clearly established why a military option is unacceptable and you can imagine the Federation signing some silly treaty with them.

I agree with Chuck. This is an underwhelming episode. The stakes are poorly laid out and relies on the characters not acting the way they normally would.
I don't think these are technically Federation citizens anymore, considering that they are descendants of a crashed ship.
User avatar
Madner Kami
Captain
Posts: 4044
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:35 pm

Re: TNG - The Ensigns of Command

Post by Madner Kami »

Jonathan101 wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:26 pmThe leaders might be forcing the population to stay and fight / die- what will the Federation do if they say "no-one is leaving?" or if the leaders withhold the information?

The latter is what happened in this episode- Data explained the situation to the leadership and he was asked to leave, and when he started telling the rest of the population what was happening Data was knocked out, so Data took more drastic action. If he simply walked away, even if he somehow took a few refugees (which was logistically difficult) he would still be condemning the rest to death.

There are thousands of colonists on this world and their impending doom is days away- it isn't logistically possible or reasonable to expect the whole society to digest and debate the facts before they are annihilated.

Are you saying that the Federation SHOULD have stood by and done nothing?
Should the western world stand by and do nothing while China annihilates the Uigurs and Tibetans; while the Taliban kill everyone who doesn't share their particular interpretation of a religion?
Jonathan101 wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:26 pmAre you saying that the Federation SHOULD have stood by and done nothing?
No, I didn't. And neither did the Federation stand by and did nothing.
Last edited by Madner Kami on Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?
- xoxSAUERKRAUTxox
Post Reply