StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Chuck reviews one of the best DS9 episodes ever. Nay... one of the best Star Trek episodes ever.

http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-re ... ew-5712934

A beautiful review, with excellent insights into what made the episode resonate so well.

Pretty much what I thought. It was a huge turning point for Kira, in that she starts the episode with 'if he was there, he's guilty. They're all guilty.' and ends with 'He's a Cardassian, that's enough.' 'No. No, it's not.'

I hadn't known Duet was a bottle show. I always kind of figured it spent a lot on star power for the guy playing Maritza. Good on them, though.

Years ago a friend of mine asked me if I had seen some episode or other of Deep Space 9, and I said I hadn't. The next thing I know he shows up with one of those single episode VHS cassettes of "Duet." And damn, was that a hell of an episode. Definitely one of the best hours of Trek ever. Harris Yulin was amazing.

One of the outstanding episodes of the first season and an example of what Deep Space Nine was originally aiming for as a show. Well played by both Nana Visitor and Harris Yulin. This one was one of my favourites.

Still one of DS9's best episodes and a favorite of mine too -- all the more ironic as I associate Yulin with asshole roles like Judge Wexler in Ghostbusters 2 or Quentin Travers in Buffy.

I forget, whats the '20 dollar bill' award for?

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I forget, whats the '20 dollar bill' award for?

Genocide. It's whenever a character does something that causes the outright death of a whole group of people.

Jackson's behavior toward the Native Americans was horrid even before it culminated in Indian Removal. Just look at the treaties he imposed on them following the War of 1812, where he not only took land from pro-British tribes but his own allies, the same ones who helped him win his famous Battle of New Orleans. He also ruthlessly betrayed the African-American slaves who volunteered to serve with his (battle-winning!) artillery by not supporting their manumission.

For the record, I still want to replace him on the $20 with John Q. Adams.

Steve wrote: For the record, I still want to replace him on the $20 with John Q. Adams.

Plus, it's just ironic having a guy who shut down a central bank on a central bank note.

Destructionator XIII wrote:So named because of President Jackson, who is on the twenty. He ordered the extermination of various Indian tribes. You might remember the trail of tears - a fucking death march - as one famous event under his watch. (edit: well I guess "death march" is a controversial term, but anyway, it wasn't pretty.)

When the Supreme Court told him to knock it off, he told them to go fuck themselves. Legend has it that he said: "It is [Chief Justice] John Marshall's decision. Let him enforce it!"

The fact of whether Jackson said it is dubious, the case it was in response to didn't involve him or the federal government removing the Cherokee at all, and even then, Jackson didn't remove the Cherokee to Oklahoma until a treaty was signed by a faction of the Cherokee permitting the move.
Source 1
Source 2

Said faction was trying to salvage an impossible situation, as the state of Georgia and other states were blatantly violating treaties with the Indian nations, and thus federal law, in imposing state laws on Native territory, including stripping Natives of civil rights and the ability to testify in court.

Don't try to sugarcoat it or make it look like they "brought it on themselves". It was the white governments in the South (and in Illinois and Indiana) who wanted the Natives out completely so their land could be appropriated and given to white settlers, who had been illegally squatting on Native territory and taking Native land since the turn of the century. Jackson was a whole-hearted advocate of Indian Removal, which was a policy of nothing less than ethnic cleansing -the expulsion of all Native Americans east of the Mississippi - that led to countless deaths.

The rulings in question were in fact about white missionaries imprisoned by Georgia for violating state laws restricting their ability to teach and interact with the Cherokee, laws signed because the missionaries and their peers were a source of pro-Indian reporting and sentiment and were helping them fight Indian Removal.

The costly Seminole Wars were another result of this policy, in which Jacksonians in the Army blatantly violated the laws and traditions of war (the capture of Osceola under a flag of truce being the most well known) in an attempt to enforce Indian Removal.

So, yes, whenever you look at a $20 bill, the mug you see on it is of an advocate and supporter of ethnic cleansing (and a slaveowner and unrepentant racist and a violent man who also executed men without due process during his illegal occupation of Spanish Florida).

I'm not ashamed of admitting I once admired Jackson for being a war hero. That was before I knew about his actions against the Indians. Since then, I've changed my views. Sure, he did a few good things as president, such as sending a clear message to South Carolina that secession wasn't going to happen, but his entire administration was a cluster-fuck of bad decisions that took time to really sink in, so all his failures were blamed on Van Buren, who was his chosen successor. I'm not well versed on Van Buren, but I doubt he's blameless in this situation.

Jackson also started the infamous Spoils system, appointing men based on how they'd made Jackson happy rather than ability. He was probably more interested in having his way than actually being a good leader. Of course, most people probably don't know anything about Jackson, so I doubt he's going to be quickly replaced.

Even his record as a war hero is arguably exaggerated. The Battle of New Orleans was a meaningless battle fought after the peace had been signed at Ghent and within days, IIRC, of the Regent ratifying it (the future George IV barely gave time for the ink to dry before doing so, despite some post-bellum claims by Jackson's admirers that he would have held off if the British had won in New Orleans in hopes of exploiting the victory in new negotiations. Britain had more important things to do at the time, like stop Prussia from wrecking the balance of power in Germany). Even if the war had continued it's effect was reduced by the successful British recapture of Mobile from Jackson's illegal occupation, which would have provided a potential base for an overland march against New Orleans anyway. And the people of New Orleans remembered Jackson well when he ran for President in 1824... and lost Louisiana. Yep, the people whom he "saved" for the British had a majority vote against him, because they remembered what Jackson had actually been like with his unjust decrees of martial law, the imprisoning of a federal judge, etc.

IIRC the treaty was signed with Britain but the ship carrying news of the treaty had yet to arrive, so technically they were still at war, but surely Jackson had news of peace talks, or a cease fire in general. It was an excuse to do what he wanted and he turned it into a political career. He'd run in 1824 as the 'Man of the People', but even then everyone knew he was a total ass.

Albert Gallatin wrote:[Jackson is] an honest man and the idol of the worshippers of military glory, but from incapacity, military habits, and habitual disregard of laws and constitutional provisions, altogether unfit for the office [of President].

And of course, when Jackson lost, he pitched a fit and blamed everyone of being in league against him and that everyone was corrupt. Quite a hypocrite when he would later go on to be one of the most corrupt leaders of the day. Even his vice president for his first term, John C. Calhoun, ended up quitting a year before his first term was up, and he would later go on to cause more shit with America's neighbors to the south with the Mexican-American War.

Baffalo wrote: Sure, he did a few good things as president, such as sending a clear message to South Carolina that secession wasn't going to happen,

I like to think of that as an example of how evil does have some standards. It does make the slaver seccessionists seem even worse when you think of it that way, that even a genocidal monster thought they crossed the line.

Calhoun left Jackson's administration for other reasons, primarily his own conversion from a supporter of the national system to backing the radicals of South Carolina. Even in the 1820s South Carolina had a rep for being hotheaded and prickly about even the slightest hint of federal power over them - a great irony since before the turn of the century it had been the heart of Federalism in the South. (Arguably this shift came in part due to the rise of the upcountry farmers and planters compared to the dominance of Charleston and its more diversified, trade-centric economy).

And there was also the pettiness of the "Petticoat Affair", which had Jackson trying to impose his desires on the wives of his Cabinet members.

Baffalo wrote:Jackson also started the infamous Spoils system, appointing men based on how they'd made Jackson happy rather than ability. He was probably more interested in having his way than actually being a good leader. Of course, most people probably don't know anything about Jackson, so I doubt he's going to be quickly replaced.

Ironic, in that his contempt for 'toadies and lickspittles' was one of claims to fame as a general. Along with his long list of victories, famous harshness with discipline and his theatric tantrums.

I will not the fault the man for New Orleans, as far as I know neither he nor the British commander had any way of knowing the war had ended. For Indian Removal, and the seizing of much of FLorida, I will blame the man.

Is it my imagination, or have we wandered a bit off-topic?

Ahriman238 wrote:Is it my imagination, or have we wandered a bit off-topic?

Gee, what makes you think that :V

I don't fault him for fighting the Battle of New Orleans. The Brits were the ones who attacked after all. I do fault him for betraying his own Indian allies, returning to slavery men who helped him win the battle by manning his artillery, ruling New Orleans and Louisiana capriciously under martial law (as stated, the state went to Clay-Adams in 1824), and imprisoning a federal judge sent to oversee law and order in his area.

And, as stated, we have gotten off-topic. The proper topic is that this is a masterpiece episode of the entire Star Trek franchise, the standard by which bottle episodes should be measured, and that furthermore the Cardassians deserved a good ass-whuppin' for the evil shit they pulled off.

Steve wrote:The proper topic is that this is a masterpiece episode of the entire Star Trek franchise, the standard by which bottle episodes should be measured, and that furthermore the Cardassians deserved a good ass-whuppin' for the evil shit they pulled off.

But that raises the question of how do you punish someone without becoming the monster they were? I believe the expression "An eye for an eye leaves both men blind" sums it up right. The only way to really punish the Cardassians is to teach them WHY it's bad, but when their entire society is built on this, how can you teach them without committing the same acts of cruelty on them? In fact, I think that was the entire attitude the Bajoran government had. They wanted to punish EVERYONE at Gallitep, even the file clerk who wept because he was too scared to do anything. As Chuck put it, when your attitude towards justice means balancing the scales, all you're doing is throwing another body on the pile.

It's also I believe one of the first episodes to showcase Cardassian judicial affairs, or at least hint at them. How everyone is guilty and that punishment is often execution. The State is perfect, the State is never wrong, and the State knows this. You may be flawed, you may be insecure, but you are forever at the mercy of the State. Your life means nothing compared to the glorious State. It seems like such an alien concept to us but yet the Nazis were similar in their beliefs. You do your duty and remove the flaws from society, burning through anyone and everything that slows you down. The only thing that matters in the end is that the State is stronger, regardless of how many bodies you throw on the pile. Especially if those bodies belong to those who are inferior.

Indeed, that is a good reproach to my words. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this, and the only potential solution aside from turning your back and letting it continue is likely armed conflict aimed at dismantling the state apparatus that creates people like Kira and Marritza, a conflict which will kill innocent people. Because how do you teach a people that what they've done is wrong if the very State that prompts the wrong-doing has the power to suppress that message effectively? Then your only solution is dismantling that State, forcing it to allow the message to be spread... and that will likely require the application of force.

That said... there are degrees. You could go to war, devastate the Cardassian military, force the Central Command to surrender and the Obsidian Order to disband, and while you would cause suffering, you won't necessarily be making your own Galliteps to do to the Cardies what they did to the Bajorans and undoubtedly many other people, including their own. There is a difference between the two.

Yes there are degrees, but would the Bajoran people necessarily be the right ones to do so? A good example would probably be Israel and the other powers surrounding them. There is genuine hatred there, not only for what has recently happened, but also over what has happened in the past. Kira was forced to see for herself that her own hatred blinded her to the reality, that this man was a fake. And yet she still wanted to make him pay. If the Bajorans went to war, they'd be trying to destroy everything the Cardassians had, to avenge those who died during the Occupation. And if the Federation got involved, they'd be advising the Federation bomb Cardassia from orbit.

When both sides hate each other to the degree that is shown here, negotiations aren't enough. You have to make them realize that by perpetrating the cycle of hate and violence that they're just as bad as the people they swore to get revenge on. A similar scenario emerged in TNG: Loud as a Whisper, when both sides had been fighting so long they forgot the original reason they even went to war. They were so distrustful that they even brought weapons to a neutral site in the hopes of taking out the other leaders. Of course, we got the nice happy ending when he gave them something in common with the sign language, but that was when both sides wanted to finally negotiate a peace. What happens if the Cardassians and the Bajorans go to war with the single intention of fighting until neither side exists?

Wait, when did I say it was the Bajorans who should be doing this? They'd get their asses handed to them.

Steve wrote:Wait, when did I say it was the Bajorans who should be doing this? They'd get their asses handed to them.

Well yes but the Bajorans would go running to the Federation I'm sure. "They attacked us and if you want us to be on your side you'd better defend us!"

Knowing the UFP they'd probably invoke the Prime Directive in that case.