Spoilers Who is sympathetic to the Klingons?
- Thread starter Charles Phipps
- Start date
I think portraying the Klingons as competitors of the Federation rather than MORTAL ENEMIES OF THE EMPIRE KAHLESS BLARGH BAH makes a lot more sense. How are we supposed to relate to any Klingons we meet in this series?
"Wedonot Forgiiiiivvvvv....orforgetttt..."
You're not sympathetic to Kurn?!?! I have more sympathy for Kurn, than possibly any other character(well, except O'Brien)
I'm a Trek fan since 1966. Forgetting and forgiving isn't written into my book. (OK, it is. But it's too much fun taking the piss out of it all.)
The Klingons in ENT are much more sympathetic as a species than any of the Klingons we've seen thus far in DSC. For all their storytelling faults Berman, Braga and other writers like the Reeves-Stevenses gave us a fair variety of 22nd century Klingons, some to feel sympathy for(Klaang, Dr. Antaak), many to loathe and despise(the bullies in "Marauders," the 22nd century ancestor of Duras) and others who initially displayed overt hostility and whom we became skeptical of(the Klingon Chancellor and High Council, the commander of the battle cruiser in "Unexpected").
Yes, historically the Klingons were Soviet analogs. They also include feudal Japanese samurai, vikings and Mongolian horde influences.
ST Discovery Klingons' slogan "Remain Klingon" was inspired by President Trump's "Make America Great Again" and other interviews with the written saw that later in the season the Klingons are supposed to be analogous to North Korea.
The problem with analogies to the real world is any such view of current politics is likely to contain bias and misunderstanding.
For example, I have seen totalitarianism referenced in this thread. Among academics the totalitarian thesis has fallen out of favor and basically considered debunked, although you will hear it repeated in media/journalism and common usage. The reason academics toss it out is because totalitarianism is itself a backwards reading of politics, imposing a paradigm with an agenda, rather than being descriptive and based on scientific study and observation of society, history and politics. Basically those who took the views of capitalist liberal democracies created a backwards reading which would lump two other political ideologies and systems: fascism and socialism, and lump them together, even though those two systems are also very different. Also, say you are a sociologist and you want to study the Soviet Union, for example. The notion of totalitarianism would make sociology impossible, if we are to believe an entire society is based only around the ruler and that nothing else exists or can exist independent of the rulers, in opposition to the rulers, in defiance to the ruers or in subversion of the rulers. So portraying a rival power as totally encompassed in anything works for propaganda, but it doesn't help one actually understand that society.
The second problem when folks look at real world geo-political conflicts and rivalries, is the bias, lack of education or context that most people's understandings portray. I take more of a view of history and politics as having almost a Newtonian-quality to them. For every force and action there is an equal counter-force and action. This means there is a commonly-held tendency in the West to look at regimes like say North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc, as somehow being inherently hostile, aggressive, and militaristic because of something rooted in their different ideology. I suggest rather that these historic examples adopted those postures as a reaction rather than a choice. The Soviet Union was attacked by some 16 foreign powers once it was formed (including the USA and the UK), North Korea did not like the USA occupying the South and then pulling out of the Moscow Accords and holding a separate election when it was clear the Communists were better organized and were going to win the elections and then once the war happens had to deal with the whole UN basically carpet-bombing their whole country, Cuba had like much of Latin America a legacy of dominance by US imperialism (economic, military and political) particularly the legacy of the Banana Wars. Without going as far as saying that such regimes are "justified", considering how in the real world the agenda pursued by the USA in relations to these powers has been "regime change" rather than formalization of relations, such a posture is a logical response to the world's most powerful bloc, a bloc that historically has with alarming frequency destabilized rival countries through subterfuge, civil war, coups, bombings, embargoes and invasions.
The UFP is seen as analogous to the modern West, the USA or NATO in particular, but that is problematic, because the UFP is supposed to be relatively utopian, where as NATO and the USA have more baggage than truly self-less, pure, noble and un-self-interested pursuits. Just take NATO, who insisted they were a peaceful pact who in no-way were anti-Soviet (which from the Soviet perspective was suspect, considering they had heard this before from the Anti-Comitern Pact, and also that a number of the NATO countries were the ones who had attacked the Soviet Union by intervening in the Russian Civil War). When Stalin asked to join NATO, the Soviets were rebuffed, thus in the Soviet mind believing that NATO was exposed as an anti-Soviet pact, who were not going to be up to any good in relation to Russia and the other republics. this tension continues today, because although NATO existed supposedly against the Soviet threat, there is no more Soviet Union but there still is NATO. James Baker III (US Secretary of State) and Eduard Shevardnadze, his Soviet counterpart reached an agreement at Jacksonhole that the Soviet Union would not use force to keep the waster bloc propped up and in return the US would not have NATO go pst Berlin, no one inch east. But Germany reunited, and the New Germany was part of NATO, so it went east. Presidents Clinton, GW Bush and Obama all signed more eastern nations into NATO. While I am no fan of the corrupt Russian Federation, it is interesting how the West portrays Russia, Putin in particular, as being the aggressor and hostile (reducing historical process tot he will of one single individual's subjectivity). Yet even as NATO just intervened in Libya, created a civil war still on going, a failed state, a humanitarian refugee crisis, etc, NATO insist they come in peace. The actions of the West are not viewed nor portrayed as being hostile, but if you take a moment to step outside bias, it should be clear why other regimes are frightened of the West.
So I believe that real life political/historical biases definitely can warp folk's views to portraying rivals in non-realistic ways: totalitarian (as opposed to authoritarian or autocratic), inherently bent on aggression and world domination (instead of reacting to historical grievances and actual credible threats to their existence). Star Trek races have many times reflected these biases and ideological, rather than historical, view of the world and international relations. In a sense, the alien empires can be as much of a cartoon villains as folks understand current movements and regimes to be, because so many view these societies as cartoons rather than understanding context.
If we are going to take one of their allegories, North Korea, for the current Klingons, it somewhat works. Is there anything inherently wrong with the Klingons wanting to remain Klingon, and is there anything inherently wrong about North Koreans wanting a society and culture that isn't as Americanized as their Southern counterparts? The very thought of the existence of a country and society like North Korea is repugnant to so many in the West, and arguably draws a greater ire than regimes such as Saudi Arabia and the various sheiks and emirs installed by Britain following WW1 (who are in my view, much more backward and tyrannical than any other regime).
And part of the problem is that we don't really get a full view of the Star Trek universe. We actually know more about the politics and history of the government of the Klingon Empire than we do the leaders of the Federation. We are just told uncritically that the UFP is a democracy without much further elaboration or seeing it in action. That is suspicious. The best critique to the federation came in DS9, namely the Maquis, who had good critiques of the Federation and were holdout by the Federation in a form of imperialism, that small border colonies were dictated to vacate their worlds to Cardassians when that was apparently not the will of the people who lived on those border worlds. That to me seems like Federation Imperialism, although of course we see there is context and a situation which perhaps offers no perfect solution, still then that shows the Federation itself is not perfect, and is not really giving a full voice to the minority, thereby leaving them entirely disenfranchised.
The second point of contention is the existence of Section 31, which shows the Federation and Starfleet aren't as perfect as they claims to be.
T'Kuvma and the Klingons see a satellite array near Klingon space. How can they be certain that this satellite on their borders isn't for spying or some form of antagonism? Sure, you would say they can say with certainty that it is, but could they say with certainty it isn't? The fact that it is placed so closed to their borders may be why the Klingons views the satellite's placement as a provocative act.
The Klingons are divided and at a weak point. They stand to fall in further decline and the Federation as their powerful and rapidly expanding neighbor does pose a credible threat to the Klingon Empire. T'Kuvma's rallying call may be overly suspicious of the UFP, but it isn't entirely uncalled for. When he tells the remaining houses to look as their destiny arrives, he times it perfectly as the Federation ships arrive en masse.
My thoughts about where this is going. T'Kuvma's house seems to be a faction that reminds me a bit of Ancient Egypt, T'Kuvma's costume looks almost Pharaoh-like, the whole ship is a tomb and they are fascinated by the dead. My thought is that in keeping with the Klingon-Soviet model, that T;Kuvma's actions will for a time serve as a unity for the houses, but this religious resurgence as a political regime will be defeated by rival houses who take a less superstitious form of Klingon ideology, who say the body is just an empty shell, and who killed their gods because they were too troublesome. In other words, one/a few of the rival houses will be more Bolshevik than traditionalist/religious, using realpolitik and the regime they establish will be the one we know from TOS to TNG-eras, as a more pragmatic and rational regime.
ST Discovery Klingons' slogan "Remain Klingon" was inspired by President Trump's "Make America Great Again" and other interviews with the written saw that later in the season the Klingons are supposed to be analogous to North Korea.
The problem with analogies to the real world is any such view of current politics is likely to contain bias and misunderstanding.
For example, I have seen totalitarianism referenced in this thread. Among academics the totalitarian thesis has fallen out of favor and basically considered debunked, although you will hear it repeated in media/journalism and common usage. The reason academics toss it out is because totalitarianism is itself a backwards reading of politics, imposing a paradigm with an agenda, rather than being descriptive and based on scientific study and observation of society, history and politics. Basically those who took the views of capitalist liberal democracies created a backwards reading which would lump two other political ideologies and systems: fascism and socialism, and lump them together, even though those two systems are also very different. Also, say you are a sociologist and you want to study the Soviet Union, for example. The notion of totalitarianism would make sociology impossible, if we are to believe an entire society is based only around the ruler and that nothing else exists or can exist independent of the rulers, in opposition to the rulers, in defiance to the ruers or in subversion of the rulers. So portraying a rival power as totally encompassed in anything works for propaganda, but it doesn't help one actually understand that society.
The second problem when folks look at real world geo-political conflicts and rivalries, is the bias, lack of education or context that most people's understandings portray. I take more of a view of history and politics as having almost a Newtonian-quality to them. For every force and action there is an equal counter-force and action. This means there is a commonly-held tendency in the West to look at regimes like say North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc, as somehow being inherently hostile, aggressive, and militaristic because of something rooted in their different ideology. I suggest rather that these historic examples adopted those postures as a reaction rather than a choice. The Soviet Union was attacked by some 16 foreign powers once it was formed (including the USA and the UK), North Korea did not like the USA occupying the South and then pulling out of the Moscow Accords and holding a separate election when it was clear the Communists were better organized and were going to win the elections and then once the war happens had to deal with the whole UN basically carpet-bombing their whole country, Cuba had like much of Latin America a legacy of dominance by US imperialism (economic, military and political) particularly the legacy of the Banana Wars. Without going as far as saying that such regimes are "justified", considering how in the real world the agenda pursued by the USA in relations to these powers has been "regime change" rather than formalization of relations, such a posture is a logical response to the world's most powerful bloc, a bloc that historically has with alarming frequency destabilized rival countries through subterfuge, civil war, coups, bombings, embargoes and invasions.
The UFP is seen as analogous to the modern West, the USA or NATO in particular, but that is problematic, because the UFP is supposed to be relatively utopian, where as NATO and the USA have more baggage than truly self-less, pure, noble and un-self-interested pursuits. Just take NATO, who insisted they were a peaceful pact who in no-way were anti-Soviet (which from the Soviet perspective was suspect, considering they had heard this before from the Anti-Comitern Pact, and also that a number of the NATO countries were the ones who had attacked the Soviet Union by intervening in the Russian Civil War). When Stalin asked to join NATO, the Soviets were rebuffed, thus in the Soviet mind believing that NATO was exposed as an anti-Soviet pact, who were not going to be up to any good in relation to Russia and the other republics. this tension continues today, because although NATO existed supposedly against the Soviet threat, there is no more Soviet Union but there still is NATO. James Baker III (US Secretary of State) and Eduard Shevardnadze, his Soviet counterpart reached an agreement at Jacksonhole that the Soviet Union would not use force to keep the waster bloc propped up and in return the US would not have NATO go pst Berlin, no one inch east. But Germany reunited, and the New Germany was part of NATO, so it went east. Presidents Clinton, GW Bush and Obama all signed more eastern nations into NATO. While I am no fan of the corrupt Russian Federation, it is interesting how the West portrays Russia, Putin in particular, as being the aggressor and hostile (reducing historical process tot he will of one single individual's subjectivity). Yet even as NATO just intervened in Libya, created a civil war still on going, a failed state, a humanitarian refugee crisis, etc, NATO insist they come in peace. The actions of the West are not viewed nor portrayed as being hostile, but if you take a moment to step outside bias, it should be clear why other regimes are frightened of the West.
So I believe that real life political/historical biases definitely can warp folk's views to portraying rivals in non-realistic ways: totalitarian (as opposed to authoritarian or autocratic), inherently bent on aggression and world domination (instead of reacting to historical grievances and actual credible threats to their existence). Star Trek races have many times reflected these biases and ideological, rather than historical, view of the world and international relations. In a sense, the alien empires can be as much of a cartoon villains as folks understand current movements and regimes to be, because so many view these societies as cartoons rather than understanding context.
If we are going to take one of their allegories, North Korea, for the current Klingons, it somewhat works. Is there anything inherently wrong with the Klingons wanting to remain Klingon, and is there anything inherently wrong about North Koreans wanting a society and culture that isn't as Americanized as their Southern counterparts? The very thought of the existence of a country and society like North Korea is repugnant to so many in the West, and arguably draws a greater ire than regimes such as Saudi Arabia and the various sheiks and emirs installed by Britain following WW1 (who are in my view, much more backward and tyrannical than any other regime).
And part of the problem is that we don't really get a full view of the Star Trek universe. We actually know more about the politics and history of the government of the Klingon Empire than we do the leaders of the Federation. We are just told uncritically that the UFP is a democracy without much further elaboration or seeing it in action. That is suspicious. The best critique to the federation came in DS9, namely the Maquis, who had good critiques of the Federation and were holdout by the Federation in a form of imperialism, that small border colonies were dictated to vacate their worlds to Cardassians when that was apparently not the will of the people who lived on those border worlds. That to me seems like Federation Imperialism, although of course we see there is context and a situation which perhaps offers no perfect solution, still then that shows the Federation itself is not perfect, and is not really giving a full voice to the minority, thereby leaving them entirely disenfranchised.
The second point of contention is the existence of Section 31, which shows the Federation and Starfleet aren't as perfect as they claims to be.
T'Kuvma and the Klingons see a satellite array near Klingon space. How can they be certain that this satellite on their borders isn't for spying or some form of antagonism? Sure, you would say they can say with certainty that it is, but could they say with certainty it isn't? The fact that it is placed so closed to their borders may be why the Klingons views the satellite's placement as a provocative act.
The Klingons are divided and at a weak point. They stand to fall in further decline and the Federation as their powerful and rapidly expanding neighbor does pose a credible threat to the Klingon Empire. T'Kuvma's rallying call may be overly suspicious of the UFP, but it isn't entirely uncalled for. When he tells the remaining houses to look as their destiny arrives, he times it perfectly as the Federation ships arrive en masse.
My thoughts about where this is going. T'Kuvma's house seems to be a faction that reminds me a bit of Ancient Egypt, T'Kuvma's costume looks almost Pharaoh-like, the whole ship is a tomb and they are fascinated by the dead. My thought is that in keeping with the Klingon-Soviet model, that T;Kuvma's actions will for a time serve as a unity for the houses, but this religious resurgence as a political regime will be defeated by rival houses who take a less superstitious form of Klingon ideology, who say the body is just an empty shell, and who killed their gods because they were too troublesome. In other words, one/a few of the rival houses will be more Bolshevik than traditionalist/religious, using realpolitik and the regime they establish will be the one we know from TOS to TNG-eras, as a more pragmatic and rational regime.
Last edited:
Any sympathy for Klingon commander T'Rump?
I saw the mention of the "Melting Pot" in an earlier post and forgot to comment.
I also forgot to say that the Melting Pot thesis is essentially assimilationist. The Melting pot contains the notions that diversity and distinctiveness are melted away for a new whole.
Mixed salad theory says that diversity is maintained, but distinctive ingredients make a whole dish.
Prisonhouse of nations theory says the other models do not contextualize power or even mention it but pretend all is equal in the free exchange of cultures, when in reality certain nations are imperialists and other peoples are colonized.
The UFP has many cultures, but they all seemed to have reduced their difference to the point where they all basically act as liberals philosophically. These differences don't seem to be on the level of differences we see rival empires embody down to the core. UFP differences seem relatively cosmetic rather than philosophical.
However, as I said before, the Maquis feel they are a persecuted minority who Starfleet unjustly imposed their interest on over the interests of the colonists. In their view, Starfleet is acting as a prison house, hence why they rebel.
I also forgot to say that the Melting Pot thesis is essentially assimilationist. The Melting pot contains the notions that diversity and distinctiveness are melted away for a new whole.
Mixed salad theory says that diversity is maintained, but distinctive ingredients make a whole dish.
Prisonhouse of nations theory says the other models do not contextualize power or even mention it but pretend all is equal in the free exchange of cultures, when in reality certain nations are imperialists and other peoples are colonized.
The UFP has many cultures, but they all seemed to have reduced their difference to the point where they all basically act as liberals philosophically. These differences don't seem to be on the level of differences we see rival empires embody down to the core. UFP differences seem relatively cosmetic rather than philosophical.
However, as I said before, the Maquis feel they are a persecuted minority who Starfleet unjustly imposed their interest on over the interests of the colonists. In their view, Starfleet is acting as a prison house, hence why they rebel.
Um... Fuller, the man who created the basic setup, wasn't hired until early-2016. Not exactly sure where your getting your five years development cycle?
The Klingons are definitely part-ISIS, part-Boko Haram and part-American right wing.
Is it racial purity or cultural purity though?
It seemed to me open to either interpretation.
Either way, they're thugs trying to use force to make sure nothing about themselves is changed.
So, nothing different than we seen with Klingons before.
Well, no. I'd point to "Heart of Glory".
And I would point to TUC.
"In any case, we know where this is leading. The annihilation of our culture." Brigadier Kerla
I think they can still be seen as Russian analogs.
The way I look at it is that, like Russia, and the Klingons look around at a world more and more allied, more and more representing everything they do not. And like Putin, T'Kuvma is using fear of his enemies ideals (western democracy and globalism) to unify his people.
The Klingons represent more than anything, a fear of peace/democracy and globalism, which is very much in keeping with the Klingons as Russians analog.
There are definite echoes of all of these things, and they've seamlessly blended many current politcal/religious contemporary issues into a compelling Klingon storyline. One reason I love these Klingons.
Now, I get the gripe that it goes against previous portrayals of Klingons, but viewed in context with where we know Klingons were at the outset of Enterprise, and where they'll end up 10 years later in TOS, it's not an inconsistent story proposition.
It makes me wonder if the ravages of the Augment virus on their civilization are a major player in driving T'Kuvma's sect to this level of fanaticism and violence. After a century of internal political bickering and strife and millions upon millions of (if not more) Klingons losing their very physical identity to a viral plague that may well have robbed warriors of their very honor and standing within Klingon society the phrase "Remain Klingon," while still a racial and cultural battle cry, could be more than just one-dimensional bigotry and ethnic supremacy.
The Empire could be in a state of fear over its own genetic and cultural destiny, a state of affairs that leaves the door wide open for demagogues and religious zealots who claim the inheritance of Kahless himself to step into the fray and attempt to unite a civilization that has been fighting for its own historic identity for a hundred years. All it takes for religious or secular fanaticism and tyranny to seize hold of a society is for the population to be vulnerable and looking for somebody with easy answers to restore their national self-esteem and honor.
I liked T'Kuvma a lot too. He was a rather unique Klingon that I haven't seen before.
I get a very Game Of Thrones feeling from the show, especially the Klingons. To me seeing their viewpoint is akin to what is done in the Song of Ice & Fire books & GOT TV show, the story is told from many different characters on all sides of that world. I find it fascinating personally, there was a battle recently in GOT where I didn't want either side to lose because we've followed characters on both sides of that conflict. It will be interesting to see if Discovery does something similar.
Maybe because deep down nationalist extremists and religious zealots are really the same whether they’re Russians/Americans or Muslims/Christians?
Similar threads
