Bajoran Comfort Women (Wrongs Darker than Death or Night)
- Thread starter Dingo
- Start date
The early episode "Cardassians" showed that people didn't exactly like them half-breeds. But "persecution" is a bit strongly put, considering that many if not all of the purebreds apparently were also living in miserable postwar/post-occupation conditions. The orphanage we saw wasn't particularly inhumane on the surface, or anything like that.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Yeah, the very same "Cardassians". The episode begins with the arrival of that boy to DS9, where he shows hostility towards Garak because he was taught to hate his own species. Towards the end of the episode, Bashir and Garak visit an orphanage on Bajor to find out who abandoned the boy, and they encounter further abandoned Cardassian and half-Cardassian, half-Bajoran children.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
The comfort woman concept is very disturbing. That there are historic examples of similar "arrangements" makes the idea even more unsettling. The comfort women were reviled as collaborationists, rather than pitied as victims, because of that attractive human tendency to seek easy scapegoats. Women are considered easy prey.
I expect it was both. That's the way it's worked when it's happened here on Earth, anyway. The reactions varied depending on the individual women (some may have actually been collaborators - it's not impossible, that's for sure - whereas in other cases, it was clear to pretty much everybody that some had been forced into "service"), the individual circumstances and the individuals doing the reacting.
Edit: And as earlier posters have noted, it also depended on the conditions of their "servitude." I realize that a brothel is still a brothel, even if it's a luxurious brothel, and slavery is for sure still slavery, but people would tend to have a lot less resentment toward women who had clearly and visibly not benefitted from their captivity. Not saying this is right, but it is natural.
Edit: And as earlier posters have noted, it also depended on the conditions of their "servitude." I realize that a brothel is still a brothel, even if it's a luxurious brothel, and slavery is for sure still slavery, but people would tend to have a lot less resentment toward women who had clearly and visibly not benefitted from their captivity. Not saying this is right, but it is natural.
Last edited:
I think that Timo’s point at the beginning of the discussion is very true. It is a lot easier to direct your anger and hate at a “comfort woman” than at the true source of your problems, the occupier. It is neither fair nor logical but humans (and Bajorans) are not traditionally known for their logical actions In the face of adversity. That being said, as has been previously mentioned, a distinction must also be drawn between the more obvious coercion of true “comfort women” and the motivation behind the “concubines” actions. The “concubines” might have just as good a reason and be just as much a victim, but their higher standard of living and more visible position as well as the appearance of having chosen that life would make them a much more obvious target of hate and resentment.
As far as collaboration is concerned there are also different types of collaboration. Technically, being a member of the security forces and working as a doctor at a hospital run by the occupation forces are both forms of collaboration, but as one you are actively working against your own people while in the other you are simply being pragmatic and trying to help in the best way possible.
As to whether it is preferable to resist or collaborate, I think that it differs on a case by case basis. In some instances (ie Russians/Slavs/Jews in WWII) armed resistance was really the only option, as the goal of the occupying authorities was wholesale slaughter with no room for compromise. In other instances it might be better to work with the occupying authorities and work from the inside to benefit your people. This is more the case when the occupiers are not really trying to exterminate you and just want your land and resources, in this case armed resistance might actually be more harmful to the people you are trying to protect than negotiation and compromise, however armed resistance is still understandable even if not preferable.
As far as collaboration is concerned there are also different types of collaboration. Technically, being a member of the security forces and working as a doctor at a hospital run by the occupation forces are both forms of collaboration, but as one you are actively working against your own people while in the other you are simply being pragmatic and trying to help in the best way possible.
As to whether it is preferable to resist or collaborate, I think that it differs on a case by case basis. In some instances (ie Russians/Slavs/Jews in WWII) armed resistance was really the only option, as the goal of the occupying authorities was wholesale slaughter with no room for compromise. In other instances it might be better to work with the occupying authorities and work from the inside to benefit your people. This is more the case when the occupiers are not really trying to exterminate you and just want your land and resources, in this case armed resistance might actually be more harmful to the people you are trying to protect than negotiation and compromise, however armed resistance is still understandable even if not preferable.