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.
