View Single Post
Old July 3 2013, 09:52 PM   #50
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What's your opinion of Gul Dukat?

bbjeg wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
bbjeg wrote: View Post
In TNG's "The Wounded", though it's a different Cardassian played by the same actor as Dukat, the episode sums up what I think of Cardassians. From the start they were devious with an ulterior motive.
That's an awfully bigoted statement. There are plenty of honest and honorable Cardassians, too -- not the least of whom would be Gul Macet, Marc Alaimo's character in "The Wounded," who clearly realized that he had a lot in common with and respected the Federates aboard the Enterprise, and who was clearly uncomfortable with his government's covert re-arming program.
I didn't mean to come off as prejudice but with every Star Trek race, there is a fundamental distinction between each, like Klingon honor and Vulcan logic.
Every culture has its traits, but species essentialism is just silly.

When it comes to Cardassians, I generally think of the word suspicion.
Which is silly, because the Cardassians are no less "suspicious" or "treacherous" than the Romulans, or even the Klingons.

From the beginning, with Picard warning Gul Macet at the end of that episode that he knew of the high-powered subspace field that shielded the cardassian cargo ship from scans (where Picard knew they would be warring if he boarded the ship due to what's on it), to the back-stab of the federation,
The "back-stab of the Federation?" Dukat led a coup d'état. He overthrew the Detapa Council and installed himself as dictator with Dominion military support. And you're going to try to characterize the entire species based on that?

I mean, that would be like trying to claim that Humans are inherently treacherous because of some Humans' actions trying to start a war and assassinate the Federation President in Star Trek VI, or to overthrow the Federation government in DSN's "Homefront" two-parter.

and later double back-stab of the Dominion.
Whaaat? You can't "back-stab" a foreign occupying army, because you never owed them any loyalty in the first place.

There were good Cardassians but history would paint them as ruthless from the Setlik III massacre, to the Occupation of Bajor.
I'm going to play a little game. I'm going to replace the nouns in your sentence with analogous nouns, and see if it changes the meaning:

"There were good Americans, but history would paint them as ruthless -- from the Mi Lai massacre, to the Occupation of the Philippines."

Now do you see why it's absurd to stereotype an entire culture?
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote