Klingon Defense Force - Dumb Question

[Drizzt]

OK, this is going to sound like the dumbest semantic question ever posted on here.
But, earlier, I was reading the "Wrath" story in the "Seven Deadly Sins" trade paperback that just came out this past week. I was reading about the differences in hierarchy between the Klingons with ridged-heads, and those without. And, how the Klingon miners (at least some of them) afforded those in the Klingon Defense Force with a measure of respect.

But, the thought occurred to me that, in the era in which this story takes place, and the Klingon's are truly in an "Empire" stage of development (namely, aggressive expansionist), why would their army/navy be called a "Defense" Force? In this era, and pretty much in any era of Trek, by my reckoning, the Klingon fleet's primary forte' is offensive in nature, not defensive. 'Defense Force' implies that they only engage foreign powers when they intrude upon Klingon home soil.

I would think that the Klingon fleet would be entitled the, "Imperial Armada,", "Imperial Fleet,,", "Emperor's Blade,", or some such other title to instill fear into the heart of the Empire's enemies. "Klingon Defense Force" seems rather bland and meek a name, for such a violent, aggressive force of warriors and ships.


Anywho, as I said, it is a dumb question that occurred to me when I had waaaaaay too much free time on my hands. Please disregard if deemed too absurd for a response.

But, Keith (R.A. DeCandido), if you read this, you seem to be the resident expert on all things Klingon. If you have some insight into this, I would appreciate it. Thanks for addressing a dork's quirk.



Lance

 

[Sci]

The name of the Klingon military, the Klingon Defense Force, was established in TNG's "Sins of the Father." It's a canonical name.

As for why they call it the Defense Force rather than, say, the Imperial Armada or something else more aggressive-sounding... Bear in mind that even expansionistic empires will often practice a sort of doublethink about their own nature -- believing both in their right to conquer and in the view that such conquest is a function of national defense. It's possible that calling it the Defense Force reflects this sort of doublethink.

Compare it to the British Empire supposedly believing in natural rights, liberty, democracy, and the spread of Christian values even as it violently conquered foreign countries, plundered their natural resources, and oppressed the native inhabitants. Empires can often be convinced of their own decency even as they engage in horrific human rights violations.

 

[Drizzt]

Thank you for the reply. I hadn't thought of that facet of Klingon culture. It seems to me in all my years of watching and reading "Trek", that the Klingons do have a somewhat 'manifest destiny', attitude/approach. They see it as a matter of course that the Empire will continue to expand, until the galaxy is under their rule. And, true, they don't view it as conquest, per se, but rather as their 'right', as though it is only right and fitting that this should be so.
In that light, I can see how they would see their military, no matter how aggressive, as a defensive entity.
Thanks for the insight! I love posting here, because I always walk away with new insights into Trek that I didn't have before. Thanks again!

Lance

 

[William Leisner]

The Klingons initially ventured out into space in response to an invasion by the Hurq. Seems logical to me that that first fleet would be deemed a Defense Force, and that the name would have stuck.

 

[captcalhoun]

it's no worse than the People's Republic of China calling their navy the People's Liberation Army Navy and their aerial forces the People's Liberation Army Air Force.

'army navy'? seriously?!

yup.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Compare it to the British Empire supposedly believing in natural rights, liberty, democracy, and the spread of Christian values even as it violently conquered foreign countries, plundered their natural resources, and oppressed the native inhabitants. Empires can often be convinced of their own decency even as they engage in horrific human rights violations.

Yeah. Exactly right and true, of course. But can we not talk about "human rights violations", please? The problem with imperialism is the suffering, trauma, destruction, pain and(hopefully) ultimate regret it results in, not that it goes against some hypocritical sham document of "human rights". Keep in mind, Sci, that there are listed exceptions to most of those rights- as you must know. No-one is to be subjected to slavery or forced labour except... And some of those exceptions are real eye-openers.

Human rights protect us and our dignity not at all. All that can protect us and our dignity is our empathy, compassion, opposition to suffering, so on. Which you obviously have. I for one would never doubt your compassion and principles at all- as I'm sure I've made clear in the past. You don't need to value "human rights" (a mythical literary creation), because you value actual, real, thinking, feeling humans too highly anyway. And those hypocritical rights actually get in the way, because you equate the human rights act with essential goodness and morality- making those exceptions and suspicious loop-holes "good" also, if not in your mind in the mind of those who use it as a crutch for their sense of ethics. So your point has my full respect and support- only I would never use "human rights" as a justification for condemning maltreatment and oppression. We have far better, less hypocritical justifications for condemning such things. And you already have these justifications because, as I said, no-one who has interacted with you could doubt your genuine compassion and nobility.

Using the "human rights" idea is hiding behind false realities just as surely as the historic English, Klingons and other imperialists are.

 

[captcalhoun]

whhaaaaaat?!

 

[Deranged Nasat]

whhaaaaaat?!

Why do you personally not oppress and murder and rape others, or support or ignore it when others do it? Because your ethics and compassion cause you to find such things disgusting and unacceptable? Or because someone or some document tells you so? If it's the latter, what then if that same authority told you it was, under this situation, in fact acceptable? Would you then oppress, murder, rape? I'm sure you wouldn't- because it is surely your ethics that guide you, not some document.

Using authority and order and control as justification for not harming others means that if authority tells you it's okay, you're far more likely to do it. Authority and control is not to be trusted- give someone power over you, they will abuse it 9 times out of 10. The human rights act works not to protect our dignity but as a means of control, no different from the church (say) insisting "the Good Book says thou shall not kill" only to then say "burn this heretic".

We should take care of one another because we recognise that we are all thinking, feeling, worthy beings- not because some document says we should. To do so is to remove responsibility from ourselves and submit- with blind loyalty- to an authority. And authority cares only for obedience, at least much of the time. If that authority decides it wants to remove your protection and dignity- which the human rights act HAS with its listed exceptions- what's to stop it? Only our OWN sense of ethics.

I personally don't believe in natural "rights"- because they don't exist. What does exist is each and every feeling, thinking being on this planet (and possibly on others). Their lives exist. Their sense of dignity exists. If I wrong them, their pain will exist. These things are real. Thus I must ensure never to cause them suffering if I can help it- to respect those lives and feelings and preserve every sense of dignity. Other people are my brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. I don't need to invent ideas of "rights" to know I have a responsibility to treat them with respect and compassion.

I don't need to recognise a controlling authority to do it- unlike most humans, who are only comfortable if controlled, ordered, etc- but it is this very control, order and authority that leads to violations of dignity, etc. People feel safe when controlled and under the wing of authority. But they are actually far safer interacting as compassionate, fully responsible, equals who view one another with respect. You don't need that authority anymore. You're an adult- a thinking, feeling being.

I hope that explains where I'm coming from.

 

[Lonemagpie]

whhaaaaaat?!

Why do you personally not oppress and murder and rape others, or support or ignore it when others do it?

and snip lecture...

I think Captcalhoun was asking "whaaaaaat?!" the fuck has this to do with why the KDF is so named, and expressing surprise at the sudden lecture crowbarred into the thread for no apparent reason...

A lecture which makes some nice, if obvious, points, but is one hell of a nonsequitur all the same...

 

[Deranged Nasat]

whhaaaaaat?!

Why do you personally not oppress and murder and rape others, or support or ignore it when others do it?

and snip lecture...

I think Captcalhoun was asking "whaaaaaat?!" the fuck has this to do with why the KDF is so named, and expressing surprise at the sudden lecture crowbarred into the thread for no apparent reason...

A lecture which makes some nice, if obvious, points, but is one hell of a nonsequitur all the same...

Ah. I see. Good point. Well, in that case sorry to Captcalhoun and to you.

I saw in Sci's good and valid point the same sort of false mask (under my personal ethical opinion, of course) as he is saying these empires- and possibly therefore the Klingons, which was his point- operate on.

I do see that I've sort of derailed the thread by getting too detailed in that- but this is hardly any worse than some of the tangents we usually go off on, surely?

And it was supposed to tie in with his point- which DEFINITELY ansers the question asked by the OP. Okay, it's moving away from Klingons a bit, but it wasn't intended to be derailing. And my second post, which I guess might be, was me explaining what I meant- whether I misunderstood captcalhoun's point or not.

 

[Lonemagpie]

I do see that I've sort of derailed the thread by getting too detailed in that- but this is hardly any worse than some of the tangents we usually go off on, surely?

Indeed not - but just more suddenly!

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I do see that I've sort of derailed the thread by getting too detailed in that- but this is hardly any worse than some of the tangents we usually go off on, surely?

Indeed not - but just more suddenly!

In that case, I offer a genuine apology. I'm sure you know how eagerly I jump into this sort of thing. Anyway, my original response was to my friend Sci. I'm sure he won't complain about wider issues of political morality working their way (or, okay, suddenly jumping into) a Trek topic.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The Klingons initially ventured out into space in response to an invasion by the Hurq. Seems logical to me that that first fleet would be deemed a Defense Force, and that the name would have stuck.

I agree. Klingon military politics, while making a huge deal of honor and warring prowess, seems to be rooted in deep paranoia and abject fear of being conquered and stomped upon.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

The Klingons initially ventured out into space in response to an invasion by the Hurq. Seems logical to me that that first fleet would be deemed a Defense Force, and that the name would have stuck.

I agree. Klingon military politics, while making a huge deal of honor and warring prowess, seems to be rooted in deep paranoia and abject fear of being conquered and stomped upon.

That's what I say too. I often equate the violence and expansionism of Trek races like Klingons and Cardassians with fear- deep rooted fear of being victimized. Trauma on a society-wide level. Some of the novels have run with this, like "The Left Hand of Destiny" for Klingons ("The Klingons fear nothing!" Martok claims, and has to be shown he's wrong).

They're all like the Founders, really; their fear of being controlled and abused by others leads them to attempt to become the controllers themselves- to impose their order and authority on everyone else first. A Klingon will charge a squad of Jem'Hadar without concern for his safety- but he's scared. Only not in the way he might think. At least that's my interpretation.

Because where people have authority and control, they feel safe. And to prevent what they see as possible threats to their dignity and safety, they'll victimize others (and themselves, by supporting power hierarchies and authorities to "parent them"- "strong leaders" rather than equal communities). So in the end, the real threat to everyone's dignity and safety is in fact the measures taken to supposedly ensure that safety and dignity remain inviolate.

 

[iguana_tonante]

That's what I say too. I often equate the violence and expansionism of Trek races like Klingons and Cardassians with fear- deep rooted fear of being victimized. Trauma on a society-wide level.

Well said. And the Hur'q invasion provided an excellent in-universe explanation for their behaviour: stomp on others before they can stomp on you.

I don't know about Cardassians, but their homeworld seems to be rather devoid of natural resources, so maybe hunger can be a reason for that. Coupled with their emphasis on family, it seems that their expansionism is rooted in the the deeply-felt cultural need to ensure that their family would never feel hungry again.

I find that kind of analysis very interesting to make: I'm not sure if the writers of the show ever thought about it in those terms, but the big picture seems to come out very well.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I don't know about Cardassians, but their homeworld seems to be rather devoid of natural resources, so maybe hunger can be a reason for that. Coupled with their emphasis on family, it seems that their expansionism is rooted in the the deeply-felt cultural need to ensure that their family would never feel hungry again.

Indeed. I still think there's a sense of victimization in there, though. I think on some level the Cardassians are angry at "god". They used to be a religious, spiritual people; then their climate and natural environment apparently went cataclysmic on them. "God" betrayed them. In Trek lit non-canon terms, Oralius betrayed them. So they destroyed the peaceful church and set up "strong leaders" who kept the people feeling safe and dignified and powerful at the expense of any real safety or dignity or freedom, either for the Cardassian populace or anyone else the Cardassians moved against in their desire to find resources.

Everything they do to "protect" and "safeguard" Cardassia and the Cardassian freedom actually crushes the Cardassians and everything Cardassia used to be. And eventually, those same measures justified as safeguarding the Cardassian populace indirectly lead to half that population vapourized in a Dominion bombardment.

EDIT: I also think this "god betrayed us" idea- unconscious now, likely- explains Cardassian disdain for Bajoran faith. The weak, deluded fools! Don't they know they can't trust their precious prophets to take care of them?! I'll prove it! There! Gul Darhe'el just kicked you. Where are your prophets now? Let that be a lesson in life...

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Okay, looking over this I still think my chain of logic up to this point is a little wonky (sorry, all!), so I'll clarify my (overall) point and hopefully explain why I suddenly jumped on the "human rights" issue and why it is relevant both to this discussion and to the Klingons/Trek.

Sci pointed out the manner in which oppressive imperalists can claim- with genuine conviction sometimes- that they're working for the good of their people or even the world, despite actually oppressing and abusing that world and many of their own people too (the enlisted masses to the general, for example). So, the Klingons could well be engaged in, as he said, a form of doublethink- they believe they are a "defense force". That tracks with my own belief that Klingon expansionism and aggression has its roots in fear of others abusing them.

But that same argument from Sci also condemned the "human rights violations" that expansion and aggression in reality leads to. But I don't trust human rights. After all, there are official and listed exceptions to every right. No forced labour or slavery- except those forced labour variants such as forced military service or other "civic obligations", which are apparently okay. And because human rights act says it's okay, and we all think human rights act = goodness and morality manifest...we don't question it. The authority of the human rights is accepted.

Now, to take that particular exception and run with it (because the whole military aspect is clearly relevant to this discussion and to Klingons in general). Klingons have a societal fear of being controlled. They want to feel safe and secure- the same is likely true of many real nations. So I bet they consider it a "civic obligation" to be a soldier and defend the Empire! Join the Defense Force, it is your civic duty, son (or daughter as well, as it usually is with Klingons). So, as a result of their fear and their insistence that it's okay to treat their own children as, essentially, cannon fodder, Klingons have a massive military. They believe that removing their own people's freedoms and dignity by organizing their society as an inequal hierarchy under "strong leaders" is okay- strong leaders make them feel safe. The defense force is a "civic obligation" and for "the greater good" of Klingon society.

Cardassia, say, has the same concept of civic obligation and hypocritical to-protect-the-people-we'll-oppress-the-people attitude. There is probably compulsary military service in the Union. Now the Klingons see the Cardassians have a huge and active military. So their fear- that same deep rooted trauma- jumps up. The Cardassians might conquer us if we aren't strong! And now the Dominion is active- the Detapa Council MUST be changelings! The Cardassians are a threat! So the Defense Force is sent, as Sci suggested, on a doublethink-laden offensive mission to invade Cardassia. And now both Klingons and Cardassians are suffering under the obsessive control of the Klingon leadership.

My original point was that I personally saw it as contradictory to use the human rights concept as a justification for condemnation of hypocritical, double-think laden oppression or maltreatment, when the human rights act is- in my view- part of the same general problem. Everyone thinks the human rights act is an authority and standard for the greater good and to keep them safe. To protect their dignity, their lives, ensure their safety. But this is not really true, as the dangerous exceptions show. If it's my "civic obligation" to be a soldier- and the act says it's perfectly fine for my nation to declare this- then what's to stop me being sent on an offensive mission against Britain's neighbours? After all, any society which did decide to promote the "soldier as civic obligation" idea MUST feel under threat from neighbours, whether they truly are or not. I fear it leads to- in some ways-the same attitude that the Klingons and Cardassians had, and by justifying that attitude if it ever emerges again (because the glorified human rights act thinks it's okay, that must mean it is okay- after all, the human rights are the standard for morality, right?), well...look where Cardassia and Qo'noS ended up.

Well, that's my rant. Sorry!

 

[F. King Daniel]

FWIW, it was called the "Klingon Imperial Fleet" in one of the TAS episodes. My impression was that they gave it a new, softer name around the time of the Klingon/Federation alliance (perhaps part of some Klingon domestication post-STVI?)
Was the Klingon armada named in Enterprise?

 

[captcalhoun]

whhaaaaaat?!

Why do you personally not oppress and murder and rape others, or support or ignore it when others do it?

and snip lecture...

I think Captcalhoun was asking "whaaaaaat?!" the fuck has this to do with why the KDF is so named, and expressing surprise at the sudden lecture crowbarred into the thread for no apparent reason...

A lecture which makes some nice, if obvious, points, but is one hell of a nonsequitur all the same...

partly and partly also 'whaaaaaat are you talking about saying we don't need human rights?'

personally, if anyone tries murdering or raping me or mine they're going to get their ass kicked and if i kill them so be it.

as for me killing anyone, other than in self defence the only reason i'd do it is if i was in a military or paramilitary force engaged in a situation where it was necessary for me to terminate life-functions of another sentient.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

personally, if anyone tries murdering or raping me or mine they're going to get their ass kicked and if i kill them so be it.

as for me killing anyone, other than in self defence the only reason i'd do it is if i was in a military or paramilitary force engaged in a situation where it was necessary for me to terminate life-functions of another sentient.

Well, exactly. Sounds to me like you relate to issues based on a sense of personal ethics, as I of course suspected.

Anyway, I've explained what I was trying to get at. Maybe I explained myself poorly though (and I know I have a bad habit of throwing out things that make people think WTF? and then I have to do what I should have done in the first place and actually explain my thinking). Plus, I'm sure someone could point out more than a few holes in my logic but there you are.

Again, sorry about that- I know it might look like an out-of-nowhere tangent that hijacks a thread, but I had a reason even if I need to work at explaining myself.

Oh, and as I hope was clear- it's the outward idea of "human rights" and the desire to encode and order I'm opposing, not the worthy things those rights are concerned with. My problem is with the form, to some extent the intent, and how we're encouraged to relate to it- not in most cases the content. Someone working using the rights as a checklist will 9 times out of 10 be working towards the same conclusion as I am. I agree strongly with what the rights say. I just don't use them.

Jesus said "turn the other cheek". You can agree with the message and say and believe the exact same thing without the Jesus though. You don't need to be a Christian to work to the same goal as those who do "sign on" to Christianity.