test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Federation Stereotype
feiqa
Member Posts: 2,410 Arc User
So the thread of a similar name in the KDF thread got me thinking. What is the stereotype for the Federation and where has it been broken?
To me it is when an admiral will unilaterally decide to take something from a people like a raider because it will help the Federation. Star Trek: Insurrection. This really is a fight over the heart of the Federation.
On the light side, you have Picard. This is their world, they have been here since before the Federation was founded. We can't take it from them just because we annexed the space around them.
On the dark side, you have Dougherty. This will give us (the Federation) a power boost we desperately need! It is worth the cost of 600 lives to make us number one again!
Points to Dougherty for not building super weapons or banned devices to boost Federation power.
What do you think defines the heart of the Federation?
To me it is when an admiral will unilaterally decide to take something from a people like a raider because it will help the Federation. Star Trek: Insurrection. This really is a fight over the heart of the Federation.
On the light side, you have Picard. This is their world, they have been here since before the Federation was founded. We can't take it from them just because we annexed the space around them.
On the dark side, you have Dougherty. This will give us (the Federation) a power boost we desperately need! It is worth the cost of 600 lives to make us number one again!
Points to Dougherty for not building super weapons or banned devices to boost Federation power.
What do you think defines the heart of the Federation?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Post edited by feiqa on
0
Comments
TNG: Zero tolerance "explorers" (remember Pen Pals? OR Into Darkness, sadly? The prime directive is absolute and unchanging to a point of insanity)
VOY: Lost children with a helpless single mother (and, possibly, big kid bullies. Remember how the Maquis were practically forgotten after season 2? They only went in depth with it again when they were all obliterated in DS9)
DS9: Imperfect but still always right (let's face it -- DS9 was closest to the bureaucracy we would expect to see in a Federation, complete with disagreements all over the leadership spectrum. BUT in the end, the Feds were ALWAYS right and ALWAYS won, even if they did make mistakes.)
ENT: There was no Federation at the time, but if there was a stereotype to apply, I'd call them lunatics. CPT Archer was either a homicidal sociopath or had multiple personalities, yet they gave him the FIRST warp 5 ship. Then there was the Vulcans...they were antagonistic dicks throughout the series.
Overall, I'd say the Federation Stereotype is one of an overly optimistic imperialistic borderline military force veiled in innocence. Lotta words, I know. But I really don't like Feds.
What defines the Federation? It's supposed to be sharing of ideas and whatnot. But in reality it's power over others. Ever notice how the Federation is VERY rarely ever outgunned or completely overpowered? And even when they are they still win? Yeah, Feds are dicks.
The Klingon Empire (at least, in the STO era) often seem to take a pride in being old-fashioned - their Academy looks dangerously like a mediaeval castle and every new Captain is issued with a sword. (It seems to work for them!) The Romulans, well, they do what they like, ultramodern or not depending on their mood. But every darn thing in the Federation is made of plastic or "tritanium" or "transparent aluminium" (even glass and titanium ain't good enough for them!). Naturally, Prime Directive being what it is, less technological settlements are allowed, but generally treated as quaint/primitive/needing to be told what to do by more gadgety = more intelligent people. (I say only: "Errand of Mercy". Phew, was that ever a punchline!
DS9 gave us Section 31, Admiral Leyton, the Maquis (well, they shared the Maquis with TNG and Voyager), and "In The Pale Moonlight," so I'm not sure I'd agree that "the Feds were always right" (and yes, Section 31 is part of the Federation, if not part of Starfleet itself).
Usually when we Starfleet stepping in is when one group's 'cultural expression' is getting into a fight with another (particularly Might Makes Right cultures), which is when Picard shows up and says 'you don't have to like each other, but you're going to find an alternative to violence.' And for all the people who look at that statement and scream hypocrisy and point to various forced relocation of colonists, I'd simply say that what we usually see is things like colonists setting up on a Shelliac-owned world or raiding the Cardassians, and asking if the better solution would have been to let the local authorities solve the problem instead (probably via orbital bombardment).
If I were to make real-world comparisons I'd compare the Federation to something akin to an idealized form of the EU (minus so much of the corruption and Obey Your Betters garbage). Each nation closely allied and interlinked and with certain shared common laws, but ultimately still an independent sovereign nation.
Yep, either bad guys, or they end up dead. Sometimes both. ESPECIALLY in the movies, for example:
Admiral Dough-face, from Insurrection. He was a bad guy and got himself offed before the end.
Admiral Can't-remember-his-name from First Contact, fought that Borg Cube, died (presumably) before the Ent-E arrived.
Admiral Pike in STID, killed off early in the movie by Khan.
I wouldn't say the federation was never outgunned. Several ships in the show have been wiped out by a raiding sweep or by a single ship. Such as the Federation outposts on the Romulan boarder in Balance in Terror. They did win the battle, however. Only reason the enterprise survived, besides plot armor, was because it backed up in time.
This is exemplified on at least two occasions in TNG, where the Enterprise sat there and got shot (and pretty damaging shots, too - one time their shields just flat-out collapsed) for a good minute and a half to two minutes before doing anything other than wagging their finger at the attacking ship.
I think much of this was due to the fact that Gene Roddenberry wanted the show to be an allegory and to teach 'moral tales' through it. I'm pretty sure the other writers wanted more to tell a good story. From what I understand, the fans certainly did - the sheer amount of fan-work in the hiatus between the shows is nothing short of awe-inspiring, and it's painful to see how much of it was crushed to pieces in the post-TNG era (though some companies involved may not have given Paramount much choice in a few aspects of this). Either way, the result is you get characters that are supposed to be overly-perfect, behaving in a highly politically correct (or at least, Roddenberry's vision of politically correct) manner - one that conveniently glosses over a myriad of problems, including the fact that, even if the Federation or Earth were able to get to this 'moral perfection' standpoint that was indeed moral perfection, half the galaxy would seize upon it like a lion on a wounded elk.
This doesn't even start to get into things like the Prime Directive, which seems to be brought up more for the times it's broken than anything. Or the somewhat dark interpretation of "well-intentioned" - as I recall, the Prime Directive would not permit them to save people who were helpless against a natural disaster that wiped out their civilization. So the concept of 'perfect' can actually be outright sociopathic, and make you wonder just what kind of society these 'perfect humans' actually HAVE.
There is also a rather strange obsession with Earth in the Federation, to the point where you could stereotype the Federation as Earth. It seems that it MIGHT go a lot deeper then us just happening to follow ships/regions with lots of humans from Starfleet (which would make perfect sense, there may be tens of thousands of Starfleet ships out there, after all). The show seems to vary on just how important Earth actually is - we get situations where the Federation is basically about as powerful as the UN (more symbolic than anything) to situations where the Federation is as potent as the United States (a united, sovereign country with different partially self-governing regions), which makes it even more odd. The show comments on this on a few occasions (see Star Trek 6 - "homo sapiens only club"), and one wonders just how cohesive it actually is, or if everything is basically Earth doing most of the important things with everyone else tagging along.
Anyway, that's what I'd say would be the stereotypes. They're different than the Klingons, but we see a LOT more of Starfleet than the Klingons in the show. And, depending on how you look at it, and how much of it you dismiss as 'bad writing one-off incidents' or not... it can get surprising for the protagonists.
Thing is though, watching a load of office workers cut through red tape makes real boring TV.
So I wonder, does all the content written for the Federation on screen go against the original idea of the Federation, just for entertainment value?
As they are right now, and especially how they act in STO, all that comes to mind is Warhammer's Tau Empire. "For the greater good".
They are the hero, not the anti-hero or the villain.
Mary Sue.
Have a problem? There MUST be a technological solution to it!
Have a life threatening crisis? There MUST be a technological solution to it!
Family issues? There MUST be a technological solution to it!
Moral problem? There MUST be a technological solution to it!
Technological problem? Aliens, with a lot of technobabble.
Are the feds smart? Sure, they can put together a warp core from toenails and paper clips, but when it comes to dealing with others, they fail. If a serious issue comes up with another species, they throw the Prime Directive at it, but if it falls into their favor, they use every trick in their book to make it fall their way. Maybe that is what bugs me the most about the Federation. Their Prime Directive. For a culture that values the sanctity of life, they sure don't give two cents to a lesser race when in need.
As a side question, why is Earth portrayed as such a vital asset to the Federation? Sure, it is the human homeworld and all, and Star Fleet is made up of a great deal many humans, but still, there had to be a dozen other places that could hold greater significance on the galactic scale that could be used as headquarters.
Member since early 2011
Its where all the command infrastructure stuff is. After all, when the Federation was founded, you know the Andorians wouldn't let the center of government be on Vulcan, the Vulcans wouldn't let it be on Andoria, and Surak himself wouldn't have the patience to deal with a planet full of Tellarite politicians. Earth was probably the only option that didn't make someone storm out of the conference room way back when, sorta Space Belgium.
Star Trek waffles a bit on this point, and on the Federation's structure in general. Depending on the needs of the story, the Federation's authority seems to vary between that of the UN (namely symbolic but of limited practical use) and the US (a sovereign, united country with individually governed areas but ultimately under one unified authority). Similarly, the Federation seems to waffle between being portrayed as a star nation with large numbers of people from many species, to being humans from Earth with a bunch of aliens tagging along for the ride. This is to the extent that if I recall correctly, some fanon speculates that the Federation can't intervene on member planets gone awry due to the Prime Directive, suggesting that the Federation really isn't much of an integrated society, which makes things even more mixed up. Add in theories floating around about humans reproducing so much more quickly than other species (that are at best novel canon, and probably fanon), then you've got humans vastly outnumbering everyone else. The result is a mess suggesting Earth's centrality to it all.
Honestly, IMO, Earth should be roughly similar to Washington D.C. and/or New York IRL. A very important place, but the Federation is more than that, and if it were taken or destroyed, it would not cause a collapse, but rather would rile up the anger of the other worlds eager to avenge their countrymen.
Admiral Hayes survived the Battle of Sector 001.
EDIT: Just in case somebody asks.......
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Hayes_%28Male_Admiral%29
"The Federation are the Jackie Chan of the Star Trek Universe, loudly shouting "I WANT NO TROUBLE!" all the while beating up anyone who gets close with a ladder."
When Star Trek talks about "Earth" they generally use it in the sense of "Earth and the Sol System", so it's not just Earth that's important, it's everything else in the region around our small yellow star. What else is there? Well, aside from Earth (Federation Capitol, Federation President's home, Starfleet Command, Starfleet Academy, the various Stardocks in orbit), there's also Utopia Planetia on Mars and in Mars Orbit, which is the primary Starfleet Shipyard. Jupiter Station, a major Federation R&D center and likely even more things.
So the Sol System isn't just like Washington DC + New York, it's Washington DC + New York + Norfolk + Silicon Valley. If you took out those four places in the US, it wouldn't collapse, but it would take a very long time to recover and military capability would be severely hampered.
(For those who don't know much about the US Navy, Norfolk/Hampton Road Virginia is the largest naval shipyard in the world. The (real) USS Enterprise, and all of America's supercarriers are built there. Many of the nuclear submarines are built there. Many of the smaller support ships are built there.)
1) Handsome phaser dude.
2) T'TRIBBLE.
Ah, my mistake then. Thank you for correcting me. I didn't remember that he was in Voyager as well, and thus confirming he lived.
Bahaha! Picard is the LIGHT side of the Federation in Insurrection?!!??!! Ok, maybe. But I need you to IMMEDIATLY watch the final episode of TNG with Wesley Crusher called Journey's End. Picard does EVERYTHING in Insurrection he gave Crusher sh!^ for in that episode. Nothing illistrates it better than Mr. Plinkett from RedLetterMedia. Please . . . enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlV3bsafkq0
First a minor quible. All Good Things was the final episode of TNG.
Personally I felt that entire episode was terribly weak. Not just what Picard was trying to do. But also the 'last' Westley episode, but made him a worse character in my opinion.
Now let's look at all that was abundantly wrong with Insurrection.
A group of 'thugs' shows up and tells you there is a world that can cure old age, and many diseases. They have a device that can harvest a bunch of this once in the universe item and you can use it anywhere. But your best scientists do not understand the technology. The harvesting will destroy the world and presumably remove all of the life restoring materials in one go. All we need to do is move a people that have been here since before man was in space, let alone the formation of the federation.
The eager for any advantage admiral jumps at the chance and sites that the remoteness of the area is one of the reasons it needs to be harvested and that he does not understand the science. Let's do it.
Picard wants it held off. The Baku have a claim to the world from a very long time before. You will destroy a life giving world. And you can't be certain any of this will even work because you do not understand the technology. But you can 'handle' the Sona'a?
How is Picard really wrong here?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Sure there were flaws -- that's what DS9 was about more than other Trek series. But they ALWAYS won, no matter what the issue at hand. Even Sisko's death was a victory, being that he killed the Evil Gul Dukat Pah Wraith demon....dude.
I'd like the see the Federation lose just once. And I'm not talking about killing off a main character, or destroying an entire crew (and subsequent suicide), destruction of a canon planet or two, or even fighting a war that has everyone at odds with their own morals. I want to see if they can handle real loss. Like entire parts of the Federation rebelling against itself (you know, since there's nothing dystopic about the Federation). How would they deal with an internal uprising? And what would be the cause? Even the Vulcans had descenters (remember Gambit?). I'm not referring to single worlds or systems backing out -- they have that right. Helluva shortcut for the Feds. The Maquis are probably the closest they came, but they were immediately banned from Federation membership. Descent equals loss of status.
Just something I wonder about.
Cool - but be aware, I said the last TNG ep WITH Wesley Crusher - which WAS . . . Journey's End.
I dont think Picard was in the wrong. I DO find it hilarious that he did excatly what he gave Crusher SUPREME TRIBBLE for in that ep for sure. lol
The problem I see with what you are asking for is that nothing less than total destruction will do. As a civil war that breaks the Federation would do just that. The forces that the Federation generally engage in war with will not stop with 'you have been beaten'. They will eradicate the Federation. So therefore it would not survive. It would be like, how will the Americans hold their ideals if we kill them all? Not great for study.
The best I can see happening is the equivalent to America with the Vietnam conflict. Star Fleet ends up in another war to defend, oh the Ferengi. And the people of the Federation are quite tired of yet another conflict 'for the good of the Federation'. So we see civilians not liking those in uniform. That would probably shake the idea to the core. Because if they stop the fight they lose their ideals and if they keep fighting they lose them too.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Star Trek: Vanguard series.
The Typhon Pact series is pretty rough on the federation as well.
Star Trek Destiny is the worst pounding the federation ever got.
Apologies, I read your post and misread it to say it was the last episode, not the last with Wesley.
As for the episode. Ignoring the native americans in space theme. This was still a case of during a war(?) (Seriously when was the Federation/Cardassian war?) a group of people settled a world in a conflicted area. And now that treaties are going into effect with those former enemies, those settlements are on the wrong side of the border.
The solution of, if you do not leave then you are under Cardassian rule, makes sense. Them becoming Maquis because the Federation abandoned them however does not.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Now that might have been possible. The Prophets send Sisko and crew to a timeline where the federation had lost so he can see how bad it can be if they did not pickup the pace. Run it like the Voyager "A year of h***".
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Year of Hell was less crappy than the majority of VOY, yes. And the way things deteriorated consistently and intensely were almost believable. It's a shame Kes gave it all away a few episodes before (if I remember right...).
But, yeah. The Borg (as in Q Who? and Best of Both Worlds BORG) are certainly worthy of destroying the Federation in another universe. The federation itself is kind of Borg-like itself. It assimilates cultures and technologies. Granted, no one is forced (that we know of) and there aren't any mind-controlling implants required for membership. But an episode that compares the Federation to the Borg, rather than contrasting them in the black and white Feds-good Borg-bad way, would be interesting. It would also make for a way to explore an alternative to the Federation, Dark Side or otherwise. Yes, I know what I just said.