Jerroc's Betrayal
In the Star Trek: the Next Generation episode entitled "The Defector," an interesting issue concerning loyalty and credibility is raised. When Admiral Jerroc of the Romulan Empire turns himself over to the Federation in an apparent attempt to save both parties from a potentially catastrophic war, he violates most of the unstated rules of turning against one's comrades to fight for the enemy. His behavior and statements as a prisoner aboard the Enterprise cause Captain Picard to doubt Jerroc's explanation for why he has undertaken such a course of action. Jerroc's argument is fairly shaky, as he relies initially on ethos, trying to put forth his cause in the most straightforward manner. As time progresses and the situation grows more grave, however, Jerroc begins to utilize a more emotional argument, which is often very effective when conversing with the "good guys." Jerroc's method of convincing Picard that he is sincere plays heavily in attempting to analyze another aspect of the situation: whether or not Jerroc's betrayal of the Romulans constitutes a treasonous and seditious act against them, or if he is simply defecting to the cause in which he truly believes. Jerroc's inconsistent argument, combined with other circumstances which unfolded throughout the episode, is evidence that Jerroc has lost his faith in the Romulan cause and has done what he felt is right. These circumstances help to clarify Jerroc's reason for betraying his Romulan brothers and make the distinction between his being a traitor and his being a defector.
Before attempting to place a label of defector or traitor on Jerroc, it is necessary to establish a working definition of the two terms. Both terms certainly constitute an act of ...
... middle of paper ...
...s toward the Romulans. For this reason, Jerroc simply cannot be viewed as a traitor under the definition previously established. His behavior and motives clearly show that Jerroc's intentions were unbiased, and that he merely tried to do what was right.
An important factor in trying to determine if Jerroc is a traitor or a defector is the perspective the opinion is taken from. Without a doubt, the Romulans would view him as a traitor, as it is certain that they feel many negative feelings toward him. Jerroc also damaged the Romulans in an indirect way by ruining a plan which may have benefited them greatly. The definitions must be applied in a neutral context, however, and that context clearly shows Jerroc's non-hostile attitude toward the Romulans. Ultimately, the inconsistencies in Jerroc's argument helped to establish him as a defector rather than a traitor.
"I shall show you what happens to people who defy the laws of the land! In the tribunal everybody is equal, here there is no regard for rank or position. The great torture shall be applied to you!" (194)
Lies and deception have always played a role in politics throughout human history. These are referred to as conspiracies, which are secret plans by a group to execute unlawful or harmful actions. Scottish history is not an exception. The Gowrie conspiracy exhibits rising questions and potential answers to King James’s use of the military to kill a noble family under the reasoning that he was physically threatened. However, many scholars formed theories that do not align with the King’s story. The presence of theories that are counter to the recorded history portrays a political trend suggesting fallibility of monarchy regime that has the power to abuse military repression, which undermines the legitimacy of authority.
“Aged nineteen years old I mustered an army at my personal decision and personal expense, and with it I liberated the state, which had been oppressed by a despotic faction.” 1
The last two decades of the twentieth century gave rise to turbulent times for constituent republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, eventually leading them to split apart. There were a number of damaging aspects of past history and of the political and economic circumstances that contributed to the breakup and eventually caused the situation to snowball into a deadly series of inter-ethnic conflicts. Yugoslavia was reunified at the end of the war when the communist forces of Josip Broz Tito liberated the country. Under Tito, Yugoslavia adopted a relatively liberal form of government in comparison to other East European communist states at the time and experienced a period of relative economic and political stability until Tito’s death in 1980. In addition to internal power struggles following the loss of their longtime leader, Yugoslavia faced an unprecedented economic crisis in the 1980’s. As other communist states began to fall in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, some former Communist leaders abandoned communism and founded or supported ethno-national parties, blaming the economic suffering on the flaws of communism and other ethnic groups. The ethnic violence that followed would not have been possible without the willingness of politicians from every side to promote ethno-nationalist symbols and myths through media blitzes, which were especially effective due to low levels of education in the former Yugoslavia. Shadows of the events of World War II gave these politicians, especially the Serbs, an opportunity to encourage the discussion and exaggeration of past atrocities later in the century. The ethnic violence in the former Yugoslavia can be traced back to a series of linked damaging factors such as the de...
Caesar should not be assassinated by the conspirators because they had personal reasons for hating him. Firstly, ...
himself and had been a traitor from the beginning. He even had them convinced that
This essay first focuses on the reasoning for finding Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi to be enemy combatants to establi...
Ladies and gentleman of the jury Brutis is guilty of treason. He committed unfathomable acts against Caesar. He had the wonderful king of Rome brutally stabbed over twenty times ; causing a civil war. Brutis was close to Caesar but he betrayed him anyways. He said he was loyal to Rome but he lost faith and became disloyal to his country.
Throughout many different times in the world’s history, there have been various different leaders, groups, and highly-respected people that have partaken in certain actions that go against other people’s beliefs or loyalty. These people have done many things to keep their actions secretive and discreet from the rest of the people living around them. People show signs of betrayal and deception through their interactions with each other. Benedict Arnold was a very famous example of a person who betrayed his country. Once he left his country he had wrote a letter back to America explaining his actions and his reasons for betrayal including many uses of rhetoric. In the end, his actions don’t justify the means. His actions overall were not the right thing to do.
What is loyalty? Loyalty means being faithful to one’s own country, ideals, and friends. Loyalty is illustrated as Mark Antony in this The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. This play, which was set in 44 B.C., was written by William Shakespeare in 1599. “I shall remember: When Caesar says “Do this,” it is performed.” (l.ii.9-10). Mark Antony also changed his party and completely devoted himself to Caesar when Rome split into two factions; the aristocrats supporting Pompey or the republic and the populous or imperialist left seeking the help of Caesar. Mark Antony devoted and risked his own life for Julius Caesar. His loyalty might have blinded him from Julius Caesar’s perception of his being a party-going individual that would not betray him like a thinking man, such as Cassius would.
Brutus shows loyalty by his never ending will to make Rome the best it can be. Brutus had a very hard time killing Caesar because he was his best friend and he cared a lot for him.
...they backed Caesar (such as Brutus). Ultimately Julius Caesar was stabbed 23 times, his opponents wanted him dead, and in fact stabbed many of their co-conspirators in the fight . They were not honorable at all in killing him.
An ambiguous character in any nature showcases the reader to address a moral dilemma. If the reader believe the character, have they succumbed to the same level as the character? If the reader is to listen to the criticism of the character, do they hold no empathy? As demonstrated in Brutus, a character in William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”, the audience is forced to decide if they believe the criticism- that Brutus is a betrayer- or if they believe the character- that he is a patriot. Brutus claims that he killed Caesar as an act of mercy for the Roman Republic, a last effort to save it but in the end, Brutus double-crossed Caesar which would label him as a betrayer. However, as evidenced by the outward actions of Brutus, the ending
Juka, S.S., Kosova: The Albanians in Yugoslavia in Light of Historical Documents. New York, NY: Waldon Press, Inc., 1984
To develop this investigation, I will look at a variety of sources including biographies of Slobodan Milosevic, research books on the conflict in Kosovo, and internet sources on Kosovo nationalism.