Would you support the Federation's expansionist policies?
- Thread starter Citiprime
- Start date
Yes. On earth, there is no habitable but uninhabited territory where a country could expand without inconveniencing others. But in the galaxy as presented in Star Trek there's no shortage of inhabitable worlds with no intelligent life.
Not exactly true.
The People's Republic of China basically claims the entirety of the South China Sea similar to how the Dominion's claimed control of all activity within Gamma Quadrant, when they basically forbid transit across an entire quater of the galaxy and claim it as theirs. China's actions has led to the construction of artificial islands to solidify their claims, as well as disputes about mining rights and fishing lanes with their neighbors, as well as transit of US Navy vessels through the area being a source of contention.
Something similar becomes a huge issue of debate during first contact with the Dominion. Dax outright rejects the idea the Dominion can wall off an entire quadrant of the galaxy as incapable of being explored, without the right of access to traverse it.
TALAK'TALAN: Commander Sisko will serve as an example of what happens to anyone who interferes with the Dominion.
KIRA: What kind of interference are you talking about?
TALAK'TALAN: Coming through the anomaly is interference enough. Unless you wish to continue to offend the Dominion, I suggest you stay on your side of the galaxy.
DAX: You're making a mistake if you think that detaining Commander Sisko will stop us from exploring the Gamma Quadrant.
TALAK'TALAN: We anticipated that response.
(He walks through the forcefield.)
O'BRIEN: Security team to Ops.
TALAK'TALAN: Here's a list of vessels we've destroyed for violating our territory.
(He walks through the forcefield.)
O'BRIEN: Security team to Ops.
TALAK'TALAN: Here's a list of vessels we've destroyed for violating our territory.
So did the South. If the show remained on air...and maybe if it aired 10-20 years later...it might have been interesting to see ways in which the Alliance were the good guys and the Mal & Co. were wrong. Myriad ways large and small. Really stick it to the audience for getting comfortable with their tropes. That's part of what made Game of Thrones great.
And, yes, see other ways in which the Alliance were problematic. Yes the North won, but we're not angels either. But that's life. We're all complex, as are our governments. No easy heroes and villains. Honestly, Mal's life didn't seem that great, and the Alliance didn't seem that bad, aside from the Luther Sloan characters representing it.
And like the Federation, the United States does not force them to become a state. That said, there's a lot going on to Puerto Rico not choosing statehood, but, well, there are 52 stars on the flag in 2037.
Most countries do NOT accept China's claim to the entirety of the South China Sea. And the South China Sea is a body of water and not suitable for permanent habitation, not by humans anyway.
I've wondered about this though. For the sake of argument (*), suppose for a moment that every cubic inch of space within 100 LY of the wormhole really was uncontested Dominion territory, in all directions. Could they rightfully have prohibited the Federation access to their territory, in effect preventing them from a shortcut to the Gamma Quadrant altogether?
I would think so. Unless there would be some global Galactic treaty in effect that access to such special shortcuts is exempted and that prohibits any species from voiding that exemption no matter how strong their claim on the territory, but I don't think that's the case.
(*) I don't think all space around the wormhole actually was Dominion territory, that they were just posturing aggressively but had no right to deny them coming through the wormhole. Just from entering Dominion territory.
It should be pointed out that the precipitating event that turns the Dominion War from cold to hot is the Federation blockading access to the Alpha Quadrant with the mine field. So, in effect, the Federation does EXACTLY the same thing and refuses access of Dominion forces to our side of the galaxy to settle and expand.
And Bajor is not in Federation space, no more than the Dominion has clear claim to the area around the opening in the Gamma Quadrant.
That is certainly true, but this is only after the Dominion has shown itself to have hostile intentions (i.e. infiltrating in several governments, replacing key figures, trying to cause wars between AQ species etc), and not just to the Federation. Compared to what the AQ did on the other side (exploration, establishing a few colonies) that triggered the original Dominion response, those actions seem way less innocent.
The UFP is a culture where lack of resources are not an issue, so no I would not support the UFP expansionist policies they do not need more resources or more planetary space. The need for expanision seems to be driven by human culture, exploring is one thing, expanding is another. IRL the Wagon train to the stars concept is based on a romantic view of North American pioneer history.
One thing that really struck me about Netflix's adaptation of The Three-Body Problem is, in the broader view of it, how each science-fiction property in a way is a reflection of the culture its creator comes from, and the values of that culture. Since The Three-Body Problem was written by a Chinese author, the story (and arguably the entire idea of the "Dark Forest Hypothesis") approaches the idea of alien contact from a historically Chinese perspective, where contact with outsiders is viewed with suspicion and seen as dangerous.
Inversely, Star Trek, being an American creation, seems to be a reflection of mid-20th century American values, where it unquestioningly sees exploration and discovery as good things. That the spread of Federation/American influence wider and farther is an inherently positive thing, and where when exposed to human/American idealism, alien cultures will not only come to like us but will want to be like us and join us.
Sorta similar to the central theme at the heart of the story in Stanislaw Lem's His Master's Voice, it made me think that science-fiction is similar, where in Lem's story each (failed) attempt to decode an alien message is more a reflection of the biases of the person trying to interpret it, each science-fiction property is a perspective of the values that influenced its author.
For example, I've always seen the influences of British colonialism in Doctor Who. For a good part of their history within the show, the Gallifreyans are a crumbling empire who believe in their self-importance and authority to make decisions about everyone else's existence when it suits them, or ignore responsibilities when it suits them as well. And, in a way, The Doctor's adventures can be seen through the prism of being similar to a sympathetic English noble going on adventures with the "savages" on the edges of the British Empire.
Explains why I find it insufferable. Well, that's not the only one, but definitely is a big one.
And that approach makes sense especially with extraterrestrial contact.
Expansionism is really best done in space
On Earth, folks bullied one another when they should have been nicer.
In an otherwise vacant solar system where a new colony can’t hurt anyone—some contemplate their navel.
We do everything backwards.
In Star Trek, the Preservers were really expansionist. The Enterprise really going where others had been after all…a welcome wagon I suppose.
On Earth, folks bullied one another when they should have been nicer.
In an otherwise vacant solar system where a new colony can’t hurt anyone—some contemplate their navel.
We do everything backwards.
In Star Trek, the Preservers were really expansionist. The Enterprise really going where others had been after all…a welcome wagon I suppose.
Who had taught us otherwise?
Whilst teaching them how to just be a bit more British.
Indeed. I love the show but that’s definitely part of its DNA.
Once again I like to bring up the prime directive, and why I love it:
It is exactly the moral answer to explorative expansion without colonialism. Trek at it's core is based a lot on the age of exploration - the likes of Thomas Cook, Magellan, Darwin's journey on the Beagle.
However, much inspired by Humboldt's travels - it's a travel of curiosity, and respect for the indigenous population, wildlife, nature.
Not to extract resources or expand power, like the colonial empires did, but to understand the world & the universe like the scientists that travelled with them and brought us into the modern age.
And as such - the prime directive inhibits all the nasty parts of colonialism - no "white man's burden", no spreading of (assumed) superior morals or Christianity. But an utter respect for others and different ways of life, with the intent to learn, not to preach.
(In practice, of course Star Trek often strayed off of this ideal in many episodes - but still, the basic intention is there. And it's great! It's a unique and powerful message compared to other sci-fi properties!)
It is exactly the moral answer to explorative expansion without colonialism. Trek at it's core is based a lot on the age of exploration - the likes of Thomas Cook, Magellan, Darwin's journey on the Beagle.
However, much inspired by Humboldt's travels - it's a travel of curiosity, and respect for the indigenous population, wildlife, nature.
Not to extract resources or expand power, like the colonial empires did, but to understand the world & the universe like the scientists that travelled with them and brought us into the modern age.
And as such - the prime directive inhibits all the nasty parts of colonialism - no "white man's burden", no spreading of (assumed) superior morals or Christianity. But an utter respect for others and different ways of life, with the intent to learn, not to preach.
(In practice, of course Star Trek often strayed off of this ideal in many episodes - but still, the basic intention is there. And it's great! It's a unique and powerful message compared to other sci-fi properties!)
Last edited:
Dax's attitude on DS9 was part of the problem, wasn't it? This idea that they had the right to explore in other peoples' back yards.
Chang was a villain but sometimes even villains make a point. The Federation made no secret of wanting the Klingons to join someday once they stopped being enemies.
Also Kirk to Zefram Cochrane: "We're on a thousand planets and spreading out." Space might be really, really big, but eventually they're going to run out of room, what then? They never seem to think about that.
So yes, the Federation is expansionist to the point of borderline imperialism, they just won't admit it.
Chang was a villain but sometimes even villains make a point. The Federation made no secret of wanting the Klingons to join someday once they stopped being enemies.
Also Kirk to Zefram Cochrane: "We're on a thousand planets and spreading out." Space might be really, really big, but eventually they're going to run out of room, what then? They never seem to think about that.
So yes, the Federation is expansionist to the point of borderline imperialism, they just won't admit it.
That has always been the Federation’s stance. She just voiced the quiet part out loud.
Universe is a big place. Other galaxies, dimensions, planes of existence. Our Sun would burn out before we could use it all.
Space is really, really, big*. Yes, the Federation is expansionist and so are the other powers. Is the answer to sit back and watch as the Klingons expand and sip teas and shrug?
*Cue Douglas Adams quote
Similar threads
