sanalith | The High Ground (Reply)

Apparently when I get bored, I start thinking too much about things that are just too complicated for my poor brain to handle by itself. I know I’ve already ranted once today, but this is totally different, I swear, though perhaps no less boring to some/many/all of you.

As most of you know, I am a devoted Trekkie, and I firmly believe that the answers to life, the universe and everything can be found in both the number 42, and in Star Trek episodes. Even though I’ve seen most of them and Mike is buying them on DVD, we still TiVo The Next generation, because we’re geeks like that. A few days ago, the episode “The High Ground” aired, and, as I was bored, I decided to re-watch it, because it’s always been one of my favorites. For some reason, however, it resonated more with me than it had in the past. Or maybe not more, precisely, but at least slightly differently.

The long and short of the plot is this: The Enterprise is dropping off medical supplies to a planet engaged in a civil war. The “rebel” faction, the Ansata, are fighting for independence from the rest of the Rutian planet. Pervious tactics apparently failed, and they have become terrorists, doing whatever it takes to get the Rutians to acknowledge their claim. During the delivery of the medical supplies, an Ansata bomb is detonated and Dr. Crusher demands to remain to tend the wounded. While doing this, she is kidnapped by an Ansata member and, pardon the cliché, taken to their leader, Finn. The Ansata had desperate need of a doctor due to their unorthodox means of transport, a nuclear-powered inter-dimensional device. It allows them to transport unnoticed by Rutian sensors, but it slowly destroys their DNA and kills them.

During her incarceration, Beverly becomes sympathetic to the Ansata cause. While she deplores their methods, she comes to understand what drives them, especially Finn. They believe they are fighting a just war for their independence, and have resorted to terrorism because it is the only way to make their voices heard.

Beverly is eventually rescued and the Enterprise leaves Rutia, but, as was no doubt intended, the show leaves more questions for its audience than answers.

In this day and age, terrorism is a household word. We hear about it almost every day in some fashion, and we all have to come to grips with what it means for ourselves and for the world. Most (or all) of us would probably agree that terrorism is a Very Bad Thing, as it generally harms more civilians than soldiers and serves more to increase fear than obtain political or economic gains. But this show made me really think about our history, and wonder how we would label things if they had turned out just a little differently.

Finn compared himself to George Washington while defending his goals, and Beverly scoffed, claiming Washington was a military general, not a terrorist. Finn retorted that it was basically all semantics – if you win the war, you’re called a general, and if not, you’re called a terrorist. So, what if Washington *had* lost the war? Would he have been called a terrorist? Perhaps. Definitely a rebel, at the very least. If the colonies had lost the war of independence, we probably would have gone down in the history books as weak usurpers trying to cause trouble for England. The biggest difference was probably that the colonists really had no way to terrorize England herself, but some of their tactics against English citizens and soldiers in the colonies might, indeed, have been seen as acts of terrorism. But the colonists undoubtedly felt that their methods were justified, because they believed they were fighting against a cruel and tyrannical overlord. Finn himself seemed to agree that his tactics were harsh, but he was fighting an enemy that was much stronger and well-equipped, and to him, that justified the use of whatever tactics were necessary to win. In that respect, the Ansata do seem to resemble freedom-fighters as much as they do terrorists.

And take the American Civil War as another example – our history books teach us both that the Confederates were rebels, and that they were freedom-fighters. Jefferson Davies probably compared himself to Washington just as Finn did. They were fighting to preserve their way of life, and even though they knew the Union army was more powerful, they fought anyway, because they believed it was a battle they had to fight. If they had won that war, they wouldn’t be seen as rebels, but as soldiers of independence, who triumphed over a tyrannical ruler. Just like Washington. And yet, even in defeat, the Civil War is still one of the most contested in America. The fact that it is one of the most – if not *the* most – often reenacted battle proves that it’s still in people’s minds. The name “rebel” is accepted with pride by many Southerners, and the Confederate flag is still flown in some areas.

But were the Confederates terrorists? Were the colonists under Washington? Probably not in the way that we define the term today. But the Ansata insist that they are freedom-fighters first, and terrorists second. Which definition is right?

Part of the problem, of course, is the lack of a background story for the Ansata. We have no idea why they are demanding independence, nor why the Rutians are refusing to grant it. Perhaps the Rutians are tyrannical rulers who discriminate against the Ansata because of their race, or perhaps they force a certain religion on the populace. Maybe they have taxation without representation. Who knows. Or maybe the Ansata simply have a different culture they feel needs to be recognized as separate from the rest of the planet, rather like Quebec and Canada. Without this information, we have no way of knowing whether their fight is just. But perhaps this doesn’t matter. Perhaps the only thing we really need to know is that the *Ansata* believe it is just. After all, a person’s point of view sometimes matters more in a fight than the truth.

So what is independence worth? Through discussions with the head of the Rutian police, we learn several of the unforgivable crimes the Rutians committed. The worst is without a doubt the bombing of a school transport, killing over 50 children. This bomb was set by a teenager. The Ansata claimed this target was a mistake, but of course, that doesn’t make it all right. The bomb that exploded in the beginning of the episode, when Beverly was taken hostage, was set in an open-air café. Patrons and guards alike were killed or wounded. Later in the episode, the Ansata try to blow up the entire Enterprise, hoping to get the attention of the Federation Council. These crimes cannot be overlooked, and yet, the Ansata were clearly willing to die for their cause, as the use of the inter-dimensional transporter proved. Finn *knew* it was killing them, and even after Beverly admitted she couldn’t reverse the damage it caused, they kept using it. They killed themselves and they killed others, all in the name of freedom. This doesn’t make the killing all right, but does it make it understandable?

At the end of the show, Finn is killed by the head of the Rutian police. Riker points out that she didn’t have kill him, merely wound, but she claimed he was less dangerous as a dead martyr than a live prisoner, as more people would likely be killed in attempts to break him out of jail. But does this make the Rutians as bad as the Ansata? She, too, made a conscious decision to kill, rather than the wound. She, too, killed to protect her people. What does that say? Directly after killing Finn, a young boy, probably around 13 or 14, snuck up behind the police chief with a gun, obviously prepared to shot. Beverly pleaded with him not to, and he obeyed, lowering his gun. The police chief sighed, noting that someone had already risen to take Finn’s place, and wondered when it would all end. Riker pointed out that the boy could have killed her, and didn’t, and perhaps this was the first step toward peace.

In a resounding act of irony, when faced with the choice, it was the rebel, the terrorist, who chose *not* to kill.

So what are we supposed to take away from this? In essance, who has the high - or perhaps the *higher* - ground? Terrorism cannot be *right,* but can it be understood? When one person calls you a child-killer and another dubs you a freedom-fighter, which is correct? Or rather, which should be your defining characteristic? Or does it truly depend on which side eventually wins the war?

Probably the scariest part is that I don’t know. Bombing civilians is as wrong as independence is right. I hate war and killing in all forms, but I think I would admit that freedom is something worth dying for. In the same token, however, I don’t think I could ever bring myself to kill for it. I don’t know if that’s the difference between a patriot and a terrorist, but it is *a* difference. Maybe that’s enough…for now.