• marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The Maquis were freedom fighters

    The Maquis were outright terrorists, that rushed to attack civilians of the wrong ethnicity any time they could, and didn’t care how many of the civilians of the right ethnicity were killed on the process either. That’s put very clearly since the first time they appeared on TNG.

    And yeah, they were terrorists fighting against occupation and genocide of their kind. Still terrorists.

    • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • marcos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.