Well, the last quote says everything. "His objections were noted, discussed....and ultimately rejected. A true example over how over-run they were when the Federation sold them out for "peace in our time". And no, the settlers didn't violate any treaty because they never signed that shameful treaty in the first place. Sorry for being a bit touchy in this matter but I have my reasons to sympathize with those who were driven away.
^ I don't want to attack anyone here. I can understand that you feel strongly about being driven away, I just don't see the Federation acting as badly as some of you may think. Violence upsets me and as I would take a far different approach than becoming a Maquis I may react a bit emotionally at times. No hard feelings, okay?
Definitely not. To be honest, I have the same opinion about violence as you have and I think that it's worth to try to avoid it. Unfortunately, history has showed us that on some occasions peaceful negotiations with agressors have turned out to be in vain. WWII is a good example. Hopefully, humanity will learn from history but as long as there are unjustice, there's always the risk for violence.
Personally I would have just moved, but then again I havn't settled into my own permanent home yet and put down roots , I might feel diffrently if I did.
The Federation had been at war with Cardassia for some time. I'm sure that war was very brutal and caused massive casualties. Treaties to end that war would not be shameful. There are two alternatives: Peace and war. Peace must be negotiated, with treaties such as this. The only alternative would be for the Federation/Cardassian war to continue. In that case, the colonies could have found themselves on the front lines in short order. Would it have been preferable for them to be destroyed outright? Like I said, the concept of "driven away" becomes irrelevant when you can live anywhere you want, and have your home recreated to its exact specifications.
There's one thing that's rarely mentioned. Nechayev said when the Native Americans settled on that planet twenty years ago they were warned the area was in dispute with the Cardassians. They gambled that the planet wouldn't end up in Cardassian territory and lost. Nechayev also said they never should've been allowed to settle there in the first place. Setting aside the debate of this specific situation this brings up something I wonder about Should the Federation adopt a policy of not allowing their citizens to settle in disputed areas? How would an area be defined as being disputed? The only alternative I see is any time Joe Blow Fed citizen decides to settle on a planet that's in dispute the Federation is obliged to use any means up to and including all-out war to secure that planet for him no matter what. I guess that's exactly how some people feel about it. Robert
Which is the problem. It should never have happened. The settlers can't violate any treaty. They didn't sign any. Only the Federation and the Cardassians can violate any treaty. The Cardassians did so, over and over again. So when they're being attacked and killed, they should just kneel down smile, and say, "Ah, well. This was a possibility. Let's just give them a good show and some good fun, by screaming nicely, while they kill us." It's idiotic. Also, Picard's quote, would mean that when the previously Federation settlers were agonized enough they started fighting back, the Federation should have said, "Hey, not our problem. That's on your side of the border - when you accepted them there, that's your problem to deal with. They're no longer ours. If you tried to kill them and now they're fighting back, that's your own stupidity." Instead, the Federation went to hunt them down, attack, and arrest them. People who are just defending themselves. They're own people they abandoned. And so they have no right to defend themselves when Cardassians come to kill them? Last time I checked, fighting and uprooting a bad government was considered a good thing. Uh, actually, yes, he was ignored. A people like that, that spent centuries looking for a proper home, a people that had been uprooted and forced to move by the forefathers of the people making the treaty now, should have been given the highest priorities, they should have remained inside the Federation, even if it meant going back to war. Well, that's where your are wrong. The Federation / Cardassian border skirmishes were not brutal and did cause massive casualties - or at least, they shouldn't have. Remember how easily the Klingons absolutely CRUSHED the entire Cardassian military? The Federation has the same military power as the Klingons, and a greater technology, numbers and resources at their disposable. The Federation could have similarly, utterly crushed the Cardassian military. If these skirmishes weren't treated unseriously, and hadn't been fought with deficient numbers and holding patterns, but instead treated it as a full on war, this stuff wouldn't been happening. You see, the Cardassians are little upstart kids. The Federation took pity on them, and treated them with kid gloves. The Cardassians thought this meant weaknesses, that if they only tried again with more numbers or better weapons, they'd win. So they did. And the Federation kept treating them like an annoying kid that if they only yelled a little harder this time, it'd learn its lesson. They should have spanked the kid up the wazoo. They should utterly destroyed the invading fleet, annex 2 lightyears, and tell the Cardassians: "This is now a DMZ. We don't care if you don't like it, so you can not like it all you want. However, should you wish to contest this decision and try again, we welcome you to try. Next time, we won't stop until your governmental buildings... and your government itself, are ashes." It's the flaw of the Federation - they did not learn from the Klingons. The reason the Klingons were antagonists, is because the Federation didn't finish a battle, and allowed the Klingons they had defeated fought to a stand still to leave. This was a taint on Klingon honor, the Klingons considered the Federation cowards, and thus evil and enemies. If the Federation had destroyed all the Klingons in the attack, they would have earned the Klingons' respect and perhaps even alliance from the get go. The Cardassians are similar. The Cardassians only respect strength, so the Federation should have showed them strength. Bull. First, they could not live anywhere they want. Second, it doesn't matter. And third, yes they are indeed driven away.
There is no shortage of living space in the Federation. Argument invalid. Arguments also invalid. A home is four walls and a roof, nothing more. Given that these people had a near-infinite amount of living space to choose from (go ahead, prove me wrong), and that replicator technology will allow them to recreate their homes *exactly* as before, then all concepts of being 'driven away' are moot.
It's not mentioned because it doesn't matter. That's just one settlement, which has nothing to do with all the others. Others that actually existed in Federation territory, but in the DMZ, and thus have nothing to do with being under Cardassian jurisdiction bullshit. Much better to simply make sure there ARE no disputed areas. After all, any areas under dispute, are under dispute because another species made a dispute and went to attack. Crush their invasion fleet into the ground when they try, and tell them you won't accept this bullshit - especially when they are young, weak, upstarts like the Cardassians, even more so those, again like the Cardassians, who only understand force. This way, there never will be any disputed areas and you don't need to sell out your people. Except that the area under dispute doesn't fly in this case, because the other settlenents were there long before the Indians settled there, and before the area came under dispute.
Some information of the Cardassian-Federation conflict on this site: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Federation-Cardassian_War I get the impression that it was not a total war, more a "cold war" with skirmishes and fighting accuring from time to time. It lasted from 2347 to 2370.
Now this is actually quite relevant to the discussion here: the Maquis stories were written by a diverse bunch of people, and thus the different episodes give rather different views of the issue. They may even speak of entirely separate issues. In TNG "Journey's End", the treaty was said to involve ceding certain formerly de facto Federation planets to the Cardassian Union de jure, and vice versa. There was no talk whatsoever of any kind of neutral zones or otherwise fuzzy territory - indeed, the apparent intent of the treaty was to finally end such fuzziness. There were going to be population deportations as the result of the treaty, and the only population that opposed this was that of Dorvan V. Apparently, all other populations and parties formally agreed to the treaty. However, in TNG "Preemptive Strike" and DS9 "The Maquis", the concept of the Demilitarized Zone is introduced. When Ben Sisko and Cal Hudson first discuss this, we get the impression that the DMZ was a compromise resulting from the unwillingness of colonists to relocate. This contradicts "Journey's End" rather completely - and we are left to think that (Picard's solution to ?) the Dorvan V crisis in fact spurned a series of others, forcing a renegotiation of the original treaty so that there would remain an intermingled mass of UFP and CU planets after all. DS9 then stays more or less true to the story of "The Maquis", so "Journey's End" basically becomes irrelevant. We never hear of Dorvan V again, and we get no indication whether its populance or parts thereof joined, supported, opposed or ignored the Maquis. Perhaps more importantly, we never hear of any transfer of planets from UFP to CU authority or vice versa. Not until Eddington starts to brag that the Maquis are scoring "victories" and have the Cardassians "running". What can that mean? Is Eddington running a war of conquest? That's an obvious, hideous crime by any standard, and can derive no justification from anything that happened before. Do planets really change ownership during the conflict? Again, we never hear of such a thing on screen. There is this weird change of terminology in "For the Uniform", though, where out of the blue, Sisko suddenly starts ranting about "Maquis planets"... As if the organization suddenly had become a political entity with territory and citizenship. As if anybody living on a "Maquis planet" were a member of the organization. (As if any such person now were a valid target for retailatory action...) We don't get the whole story just from episode dialogue, that much is sure. "For the Cause" might have us believe that the Maquis have seceded from the UFP and don't consider themselves bound by its laws, and "For the Uniform" might suggest that the Feds see it that way, too - but "Blaze of Glory" establishes the Maquis did no such thing. Similarly, "Preemptive Strike" and "The Maquis" describe Cardassian activity against UFP colonists on UFP worlds, but all subsequent stories only mention Maquis aggression against Cardassians and occassionally Starfleet, without any hint that the Cardassians would still be playing nasty. Can it be that we aren't hearing the whole story? That would actually be surprising indeed: why would Eddington not refer to Cardassian wrongdoing if such was still taking place? Or even if it weren't, for that matter? As described in dialogue and events, the Maquis story is one of initial agreement, sudden reversal of policy, resulting compromise and bitterness, early and failed Cardassian attempt at resolving the situation by deadly harrassment, and subsequent Maquis spree of vengeance that goes completely overboard and spells the doom of everybody even remotely connected to the Maquis movement, and of many bystanders as well. If we go by this story, then the Maquis are a largely repungant element everybody would have been better off without. But since the material is so incomplete, we can interpret it the opposite way as well, highlighting Cardassian wrongdoing even in the absence of evidence, postulating Maquis or DMZ-colonist suffering without proof, and implicating Starfleet in active or passive role in that suffering despite onscreen descriptions. As for the Memory Alpha entry, it's subject to debate on details such as when the Setlik III incident(s?) took place and whether Janeway ever commanded the Billings etc. Generally, though, it seems to be good required reading for this thread... Timo Saloniemi
Maybe you should go watch Star Trek II. No, that's a house. A home is something more, a home contains memories, emotions, blood, sweat, and tears. Star Trek II: "Genesis is the solution to the shortage in living space in the Federation."
Well, not quite. Genesis was supposed to solve "population problems", which could mean overcrowding, or then associated things like hunger. Creating farming worlds with Genesis would certainly help solve the hunger problem. But where Genesis failed, replicator technology might have succeeded. Absolutely no support is given for the idea that the 23rd century "population problems" would persist in the 24th. And looking at things from the 24th century viewpoint, it must be acknowledged as a fact that empty Class M environments are everywhere waiting to be inhabited. "Sanctuary" shows that there would be plenty of worlds in the general vicinity of Bajor that Starfleet would be ready to offer to the Skreeans - and I doubt Starfleet would have any interest in offering worlds that cause conflict with Cardassians or other neighbors. Well, so perhaps colonization was the trick that helped solve the "population problems"? Even if so, the fact that these folks could settle on the near-Cardassian planets is principally support for the idea that they could also settle elsewhere, not proof that they had to settle exactly there. Timo Saloniemi
To paraphrase Dennis Miller: If my yawn got any bigger you'd have to assign it a hurricane name. Homes don't contain those things - the people who live in them do. If you have to move, then you make *new* memories in your new home, but you can still remember the old. These people remind me of those other colonists from "The Ensigns of Command". The only difference is, *those* colonists managed to remove their heads from their asses, wise up, and realize they had to move. True, the Sheliak were far more unstoppable a force than the Cardassians, but the same reasoning applies.
...Also, to put things to scale, none of those people ever claimed to be anything beyond first-generation immigrants. Indeed, we're hard pressed to even spot a single person born on those colonies (as children are problematic extras for a TV show, few were seen among the colonists), although some obviously must exist. In that sense, comparisons between Cardassian takeover of a colony world and German conquest of the Netherlands are absurd and even downright insulting. Timo Saloniemi
I'm not talking about a Cardassian takeover through a treaty. I'm talking about the killing and murdering of innocent civilians by arming their people and tell them to go do exactly that, in order to get rid of them, and conquer a planet. That IS the same thing as the German conquest of the Netherlands and other countries, even if they are only first-generation immigrants (which they aren't anyway, most of them were too young for how long the Cardassian skirmishes have been going on - and the very old grey-haired guys didn't even feel like first-generation guys to me). Killing people in order to get their land, is killing people to get their land - in that way, the Cardassians were even worse than the Nazis, the Nazis didn't go to kill every last man, woman and child in the Netherlands, the Cardassians did.
So what does that make of the Maquis when they start killing for land? Or what do you think Eddington was doing when he had the Cardassians "on the run"? Since we get zero evidence of continuing Cardassian wrongdoing past "The Maquis II", the Maquis aggression seems quite exaggerated. Is there anything to even remotely suggest that any group of colonists would have had to leave a planet because of Cardassian interference? Eddington parades a bunch of refugees in front of Sisko in "For the Uniform", but Eddington makes it clear they are there by their own choice, as victims of the original UFP/CU treaty and not as victims of Cardassian harassment. Except that they didn't. Not in any episode of Star Trek: DS9 anyway. Even the Dreadnought missile was aimed at an unpopulated, non-civilian target - a "Maquis munitions base". From what we saw on screen, Cardassians were downright civil in the way they conducted open war, and reasonably polite also when they engaged in guerilla action. Instead, Eddington certainly dabbled in genocidal action in "For the Uniform" - the first known case of somebody driving a population off their chosen planet by force or threat thereof in this conflict. Timo Saloniemi
Have you watched "Preemptive Strike" where the Cardassians attack civilians? Have you read "Pathways" by Jeri Taylor where the destruction of Chakotay's home village and the annihilation of his people are described? Not to mention the Cardassians ruthless opression of the Bajorans. I htink that the Maquis had a good reason to fight them.
Conquer? Why would the Cardassians need to conquer planets that were already theirs? Perhaps that did occur, but there was never (not even during the Occupation, which is a completely separate matter) an organized, deliberate Cardassian effort to wipe out the Bajoran race completely. There was no "Final Solution". See above. That's funny, I wasn't aware Bajor was in the DMZ.