Were the Cardassians terrorists too, or do they get a pass since their actions were Official Military Operations ™? It was certainly a hotly debated topic among Federation members. You can call it black and white if you want to, there were Star Fleet officers that did. There were also respected, high ranking officers, deep into their careers that joined their cause, including Chakotay. Star Trek is nothing if not nuanced.
Yes, if you’re looking at it from a single perspective, you can be very clear on what they were or weren’t. You seem to be pretty invested in labeling them according to your own.
If you are focusing on the name, yes, it changes because when the government does it, it becomes a much worse crime.
But I do think this is focusing on the wrong thing. There is a huge amount of discussion on those shows about terrorism coming from an oppressed group, full of nuances and different values. All of what becomes meaningless if you go… denying (?) the terrorism that is completely clear.
I agree with both of you. They were terrorists by the definition we typically use. However, that word was created by the ruling class to easily turn people against a perceived threat. They usually use the same tools as the state. Why don’t states get called terrorists when using fear and force for political gain? The word terrorism is not useful. It is another tool of the ruling class to control things.
I can see the argument of using the word and saying that it can be good. That what DS9 did. I would prefer the word to stop being used. I think it’s best at the moment to use the word, say it can be good, and then also say why the word is a tool of control and should be abandoned.
Were the Cardassians terrorists too, or do they get a pass since their actions were Official Military Operations ™? It was certainly a hotly debated topic among Federation members. You can call it black and white if you want to, there were Star Fleet officers that did. There were also respected, high ranking officers, deep into their careers that joined their cause, including Chakotay. Star Trek is nothing if not nuanced.
When a government does that, it’s not called “terrorism” anymore, and instead starts to get names like “crimes against Humanity”.
Anyway, everything is very clear on whether or not the Maquis were terrorists. All the nuance is about how to react to that.
Yes, if you’re looking at it from a single perspective, you can be very clear on what they were or weren’t. You seem to be pretty invested in labeling them according to your own.
If you are focusing on the name, yes, it changes because when the government does it, it becomes a much worse crime.
But I do think this is focusing on the wrong thing. There is a huge amount of discussion on those shows about terrorism coming from an oppressed group, full of nuances and different values. All of what becomes meaningless if you go… denying (?) the terrorism that is completely clear.
I agree with both of you. They were terrorists by the definition we typically use. However, that word was created by the ruling class to easily turn people against a perceived threat. They usually use the same tools as the state. Why don’t states get called terrorists when using fear and force for political gain? The word terrorism is not useful. It is another tool of the ruling class to control things.
I can see the argument of using the word and saying that it can be good. That what DS9 did. I would prefer the word to stop being used. I think it’s best at the moment to use the word, say it can be good, and then also say why the word is a tool of control and should be abandoned.
without the invasion, without the cardassian occupation, there would be no maquis.