Did I say "crazy"? No, I said different social mores. Are tribes where women freely show their breasts crazy? Are Klingons with their code of honor and ritual combat? Perhaps Barzan culture is bigger on vengeance, reciprocal justice, and other things that would tend to bring Nhan's views closer to MU Georgiou's on occasion.
As you mentioned in your 2nd paragraph, I think there was still a living Leland in there.I don't see how the body could scream without a human consciousness inhabiting it. Bodies don't just scream on their own; that's something that only a conscious, living entity can do.
That said, perhaps there was a remnant of the real Leland in there after all - no longer in control of his own body, but forced to sit there and watch while Control wreaks havoc in his name. Kind of like what happens to a human host in the Stargate SG-1 universe when a Goa'uld inhabits the body (the host remembers everything the Goa'uld does, sees everything the Goa'uld sees, but is powerless to do anything about it).
So maybe that's what was doing the screaming - the last remnants of the real Leland.
As for Georgiou: She was equally disposed to hate Leland and Control. Georgiou and Leland never got along even before Control took over Leland's body. So I can buy that she would gloat over both of their deaths - Leland the human, and Control the entity. Hell, I doubt she ever believed, or cared, that there was a difference.
Premier Bhavani (from TNG's "The Price") seemed like a fairly even-tempered individual.
I admit that it's really not possible to get a read on Barzans, as a species, based on only two characters, but I see no reason to assume anything unusual about them. As we've said, Nhan could simply have a unique sense of humor - there's no reason to think she's crazy. She hasn't done anything to suggest otherwise. And of course she wouldn't be able to make it in Starfleet if she was crazy.
And the fact that Barzan isn't a member of the Federation...that's not really anything to go on, either. In "The Price" we learn that Barzan is a world that is somewhat lacking in resources, and they don't even have interplanetary spaceflight capability. If anything, those would be the reasons why Barzan is not part of the Federation, not any intrinsic crazyness on the part of its native species.
Of course she is. Eating Kelpians?
Yes, clarity. Because cannibalism carries with it such a pejorative in this topic that the character is no longer being discussed. Just how evil they are.
Exactly. What else would people eating people be called in the UFP, anyway?
The OED has a definition for literally that means "figuratively". That annoys me, but I can't deny it, because it's how language works. Those of you arguing against this use of "cannibalism", please tell us what word would be used as shorthand for the crime of one sapient consuming another in the 23rd century. Or coin one. Oh wait, I've already done that. *What in blue blazes is your POINT?* I think I've seen someone suggest that the words cannibal and cannibalism pre-judge Georgiou. That's insane - even if the word doesn't precisely fit, the act is the moral equivalent. If you want a redemption arc for Georgiou, so be it - I wouldn't mind one, either - but the first step to redemption is admitting and taking responsibility for wrong-doings, and you don't do that by trying to minimize them playing silly pedantic games with language. :P
A redemption arc doesn't start by beating a person about the head with a constant reminder of their evil ways, does it?
Exactly.
As long as the term is agreed upon by others to carry that meaning. If not, then it becomes a meaningless (no pun intended) distraction that does little, if anything, to add to the conversation.
Yes, it is evil to us. To her, it would be different. That she is in the process of being exposed to a new moral standard is part of her growth. But, I don't think it is acknowledging the potential for growth if she is constantly called a cannibal, or Space Hitler or any number of terms that are designed short change the conversation and become meaningless as a discussion of the actual character, which would involve recognizing the character's perspective on their actions.
.
