Did Klingon culture become too stereotyped by the end of DS9?

I would disagree with some of that. Firstly, the Earth of Star Trek is not outright secular/humanist, this is especially true in Tos.(there's a chapel on board ship, the whole bridge crew gets misty eyed in that clumsy scene at the end of Bread and Circuses, and McCoy is almost a religious stereotype befitting his characters roots in westerns)
It's just that religion seems to have moved from being public sphere thing to being a much more personal sphere thing (the same is true of alien races, we see religious rites ceremonies and belief shown in a positive or neutral light from world's within and without the federation...Vulcan, Bajoran and Klingon being the main ones shown right the way through Trek.) and it is never once shown to be considered outmoded, old fashioned or as having been in any way 'debunked'.
It's just no longer overt (which is why I think trying to shoe horn Muslim headscarves onto side characters on the bridge in the novels, whilst admirable in intent and inoffensive, is actually quite a misstep. Religions just don't seem to have that level of orthodoxy in Trek anymore, and if you are doing it for political correctness, then where is the orthodox Jewish guy? The Catholic? The Anglican? The Methodist? The Buddhist? Babylon 5 took a different approach and did it very nicely...) It's just a personal thing like Spock and his Vulcan Joss sticks.

The other part if that is the idea that 200 years of peace led to this sort of humanist society....when in that time frame on Trek there was the Eugenics war, world war iii and the earth Romulan war.

But apart from that, yes, earth develops a singular 'human' or 'terran' culture, but never quite homogenises us, with national identity and cultural differences still quite apparent throughout trek, even if they are Hollywood stereotypes that are sometimes borderline offensive.

 

@jaime, they seem to be way more secular in 24th century than in 23th. Tasha's funeral was secular as was funeral in 'Sub Rosa.'* I don't remember any examples of 24th century humans expressing a religious sentiment, apart Chakotay, and even for him it seemed to be more of a tradition than actual religion.

* This one is actually interesting, it looks like an Anglican burial service, but words "sure and certain hope of the Resurrection unto eternal life" are replaced with "sure and certain hope that her memory will be kept alive within us all." This indicates to me that while they have some religious traditions, they no longer believe the 'supernatural' parts of the thing.

 

This is true, but I think your conception of how similar those underpinnings need to be is too limited.

Klingons obviously are much more humanlike than Xenomorph, but they still are not humans, and they shouldn't be. I disagree that the differences are merely cultural. Klingons would never have built a society like the Federation, it is not in their nature. Klingons are by their very nature aggressive species. This is biological. (It is not unrealistic either. I'm sure that to aliens evolved from peaceful herbivores, us humans would look like bunch of overly aggressive scary brutes.) Here on earth many apes (and of course other animals too) resolve the dominance via combat. Klingons never stopped doing that. Their hierarchical culture emphasising duty and tradition is a cultural evolution related to their aggressive base nature. It stops them tearing each other apart. They can not just stop being violent, but traditions and ritual direct that violence.

Vulcans are not like humans either. They are a psychic species that have greater understanding of mind any human could ever hope for. Humans could not reject the emotion way the Vulcans have. They are fundamentally alien.

None of this means that these species cannot be understood. They can, they just are not humans. We understand dogs just fine (well, at least some of us do), but they are not humans either.

 

That fits quite well with what Einstein has been saying; secular humanism after all, doesn't equate with anti-theism, or even necessarily atheism, just a rejection of the idea that a handful of recognised religions have a monopoly on theological thought, or the idea of "creeds" like the Nicene creed being the sole representation of belief, and their assumed replacement with an honest investigation of philosophy by everyone involved; i.e. you could still be a theist or Spinoza-type pantheist of some sort (which maybe Kirk was; some kind of Spinoza style pantheist or deist, with his quote about god in the Apollo episode, although that might have just been to please 60s sensibilities. Picard on the other hand seems to have been an atheist.)

 

@Longinus : the evidence on screen as to whether Klingon culture is just culturally different or biologically different is mixed. You say that they would never build a Federation, but Jadzia Dax pointed out they even experimented with democracy. I see their differences as cultural or primarily cultural too. I think this fits with the themes of what the Klingons are too, starting with a Soviet Union analogue.

 

The wording can be changed even now, so that could go either way, and be as much to do with the beliefs of herself or those she left behind.
Picard's famous Ardra speech is usually used as definitive proof of his human secularism, but it's actually vague enough as to go either way (deals with devil's would be considered superstitious nonsense by most modern people of religious faith too after all)

To be honest Sub Rosa is Hollywood Scottish/British so we should just be glad they didn't sacrifice a haggis whilst dancing a sword dance wearing silly hats.

 

The writer's did not change the text by accident, they wanted to portray a certain kind of a society. The language is very similar to that used in Tasha's funeral.

I think 'Who Watches the Watchers' is the best depiction of Picard's attitude towards religion.

 

Lol. I would say it's Distant and more related to catholicism and the fact that fishing boats don't go out on a Sunday, so the weeks fish is getting old and cheaper on Friday, the traditional night for fish and chips. Not sure where the potato comes in.
Besides, I am sure a British nationalist would avoid avoid being too anti semitic on the grounds that would be being too much like a German, and who wants to be like a German....(sees British far right nonsense) I see. Apparently they missed that memo.....

Seriously though....fish and chips? I will ask my orthodox Jewish mate next time I see him (he has many more useful descriptors including a name or being the only other person I know who owns a starfleet uniform. But that's not as relevant here. Lol.)

 

Nice
Likely a cockney chap then. Sounds about right. Between us and the Scots it's wonder we didn't deep fry the contents of the natural history museum
(yes, all nationalities can be cockney. Then we can all get looked down on together and get cast as henchmen in films.)

 

I find it laughable that there are Trek fans who think that "progress" means embracing a singular vision of utopia (in this case, it's humanism). I like the fact that each alien species ARE different, and proudly so. You have the Vulcans and their logic, the Klingons and their emphasis on the honor system, you have the Trill and their pan-sexuality, you have the Deltans and their sexual liberation, you have the Bajorans and their emphasis on religious identity, and so on. And for these alien races, they made their cultural emphasis worked to unite a planet, thus, they achieved their versions progressivism. And that's a good thing, isn't it? Conflict has been when attempting to impose one's vision over another's, which is why I found Ezri Dax's comments about Klingon culture to be intolerant. IDIC, remember?

 

@Nyotarules @jaime

I read an article a long time ago which said something startlingly simple, but which changed my view on culture. It basically said "it's obvious that not all cultures are equal, lets move past this trite fiction", and made me think about whether this statement was true or not. Up until then, I had followed the post-colonial mindset of insisting that all cultures are equal; it is only education and material conditions that differ. But reading history, I know that in India for example, sati was a real practice, that the British abolished it; India was also richer by far than Britain, when the British arrived, contrary to people's prejudicial image of a third-world country. I knew that when the Russians arrived in Central Asia and Iran in the 18th century, they found an awful culture of human trafficking, institutionalized rape and slavery, justified by a (possibly legitimate) interpretation Islamic scripture, and put an end to it. I know that many native rulers were often more bloody than the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and so on; the Ming Dynasty seem to have ethnically cleansed the Hmong, The Mughal invasion of India was far bloodier than the British one. An Afghan warlord burnt the oldest university in the world, in medieval India, to the ground, on the grounds "it contained no Quran". So, what made European invasions and colonialism more reprehensible than the regimes they replaced exactly? The color of their skin? Being mixed race, I'm not as uncritical of this idea, as some. It is of course good that these countries gained Independence, because whatever else it was, colonialism was still exploitative of the working classes; two wrong don't make a right. In the case of India, many of the rulers were themselves just a previous wave of colonialists; the same might be said for the Qing Dynasty. Thankfully, these two cultures, (India and China), went some way toward redressing this; they rejected the dogma of the past, and adopted European learning and ideas wholesale; China is, nominally at least, Marxist, and India, despite protests that some form of republican oligarchies might have briefly existed at the time of the Buddha, is a democratic republic that owes more to John Locke and Thomas Jefferson than any 5th century BC ganarajya. Japan adopted European institutions, right down to the symphony orchestra, the arts, and the style of dress, to an incredible degree, and was the first asian nation to emerge as an equal to Europe in terms of development - it also preserved its culture to a remarkable extent (probably better than most European nations), which is not as paradoxical as it seems - because in a considered and detached rejection of the past, comes the ability to look upon it neutrally and engage with it anew, through the new paradigm.

Islam didn't do this.

The political movement of Islamism is fundamentally, it seems to me, a prideful and bigoted rejection of the universally applicable sciences, secular politics and culturally neutral learning and arts that accompanied the modern world, just because it came from the loathsome and decadent west (or seemed to; as we know it's influences are complex). And it comes, it seems to me, from the conviction that A). Islam is the final revelation (so how could a Christian or atheist possibly have a better system of ethics) B). it should influence politics, unlike Shinto, Buddhism, Shenism, Hinduism or modern Christianity (with it's "render unto Caesar" separation of religion and state; a safeguard against totalitarianism). How can a polytheist be worthy of my respect, or of equal citizenship when Mohammed made a point of destroying pagan idols in Mecca? How can a woman, given their status in the Quran? Self-criticism, such as a Pakistani Noam Chomsky, is impossible if reverence and deference for the establishment (parents, elders and prachers) is paramount; Bangladesh is nominally a democracy with British common law, but de facto you will be murdered for being an atheist blogger and your police chief will insinuate 'they brought it upon themselves'. Socrates argued that the natural world is the truth, irreverent of how many people believe it, or whether your own parent or preacher threatens to kill your for saying it - it should be investigated independently and impartially - Europe eventually heeded his advice.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but the Klingon Empire could increasingly be seen as a metaphor for Islam over time in TNG and DS9; a culture violently asserting it's right to self-determination vs. the Federation, but which never stopped to ask itself whether it's even worth the bravado and prideful defiance; the Federation for all it's flaws, is a nice place. Klingon culture at first seems very different from any monotheistic semitic one - it has the trappings of the Japanese samurai or Norse pagans, or tengriist Mongols, but their reverence of Kahless, which became less orthopraxic, and more like an orthodoxy with a creed over time, looked increasingly like he is their 'prophet'.

Was Ezri Dax infact saying to Worf "I'm not as enamored with Klingon culture as Jadzia was, I think it deserves to die, and I think your misty-eyed devotion to it allows it's hypocrisy to flourish, because all someone has to yell is 'honor' for everyone to rally behind them uncritically - what has it ever really done for you Worf, compared to the Federation, is it even worth your love"?

Star Trek in general, was never un-sceptical of the societies it found - Kirk stopping the death chambers on Eminiar VII, for example. The prime directive never meant all cultures are equal. As Picard stated, it was there, as much to protect the Federation, as to protect others. So yeah, as @jaime said, I think the well intentioned step of having background characters wearing headscarves in some of the recent novels might be a huge mis-step; yet more pandering to cultural atavists and reactionaries. All cultures have THE POTENTIAL to be equal according to Star Trek's philosophy, but they have to consciously self-examine and reject things that they might not want to, in order to achieve that potential. They aren't simply equal by nature of existing. So no, @dswynne1 - I don't think embracing a singular vision is good at all. But I do think a genuinely plural one entails everyone respecting everyone, no opt-outs, just because the bigots arn't white.

 

It was me that mentioned the headscarf, as a misstep. And I would suggest it is not the same as the Bajoran earring. Bajorans are shown to all wear the earring, it is universal. Yes it is part of their religion, but it is universal, male and female, and most importantly is not something only practiced by more 'orthodox' Bajorans.
The head scarf even now is practiced only by more orthodox Muslim groups and applies only to one gender....my point being that Star Trek seems to show that such overt orthodoxy is no longer present enough amongst humanity that such a thing would be visible amongst starfleet officers. Including a character a hijab, means you start down the road of power rangers tokenism...you now need an orthodox Jewish on the bridge, a Catholic with a rosary, a protestant with some kind of plain cross, a rasta, a hare krishna with some tasteful orange accents to his uniform and..... Well you get my point. (for the record, I think scifi with what I think of as a more multiethnic bent would be great fun, and speaking as a brit I think a Sikh captain would be excellent to watch. And the Space Captain Smith books are humour based, but do have a more multi ethnic approach even than Star Trek. I heartily recommend them. It's like discworld for sci fi fans)
It's not the presence of ethnicity on the bridge I think is a mistake, it's the overt orthodoxy and inadvertent championing of one group over another that I find does not sit well within Trek, in regards to humans.
In regards to aliens....well, Worf's baldric thing is interesting, because we don't see every other Klingon wearing one, so perhaps that would be an issue...Though most warriors seem to.
As a rule though, particularly amongst humans, overt things seem to have fallen out of favour by what we see on screen, and applying 21St century political correctness to something in the future, that itself has its real life portrayal in our past (if you see what I mean) doesn't really work, in my opinion. Even Spock kept his religious side to his quarters and dress uniform, where such things are more.. Well, logical.

Edit: just to say I suspect Egyptians may also have brought superiority complex, what with the whole being a God thing they had...and let's be honest, even if it was just the next tribe over enslaving people and selling them to other people, they probably had the same mindset. They also usually had a much less benign approach to religious conversion that your average missionary. Humans have a terrible track record....very much a work in progress wherever you go in time and space. I think the US didn't even manage to get slavery off the books till about 16 years ago in some states.

 

@Nyotarules - actually headscarves are not required by Islamic law under certain interpretations, so the upswing in their use could be seen as a late 20th century reactionary political statement. But neither me nor @jaime said we were bothered, rather out attitude is "admirable in intent and inoffensive but actually quite a mistep" to quote @jaime.

P.s. The enlightenment wasn't as much of a problem for Christianity as I predict it will be for Islam, because as I understand it Christians have no obligation to follow the Old Testament - they formed a new covenant with Jesus invalidating the law of Moses. Islam has serious scriptural problems, at least in my limited understanding. Not least of which is that Jesus allegedly saved a woman from being stoned to death while Muhammed did the stoning, by some accounts. A qualitative difference, rather than quantitative, if ever I heard one.

A reformation is needed, but I'm not sure there exists an avenue for one - the enlightenment required an utter break with and rejection of some parts of European culture - total Socratic questioning, rather than respect and deference. How will this kind of flagrant rejection of Islamic culture be possible when questioning Islam's status as the final revelation is tantamount to apostasy? No, it will require Arab, Iranian. Pakistani, Somalia, etc, atheists and secularists to save these cultures, IMO.

 

This is a common misconception.

Indians, Chinese, and the Middle East, all already had guns; they actually had better ones than the English and French, initially; and they actually had them a lot longer than Europe.

But our history is misunderstood, with imperialism being seen as a white phenomenon, when actually, it was, as far as I can tell, universal in Eurasia. Perhaps the influence of Hollywood has led people to take this view, since America's historical experience was with tribes such as the Sioux.

They also didn't insist on people following Anglicanism, etc, to begin with, with some Englishmen becoming Hindus and Muslims, and disappearing into the local population (sometimes even joining native American tribes) - the British Empire's promotion of Anglicanism came centuries later, when their success led to theories of Christianity having been responsible in some social way.

 

So now I want to see a remake of shogun in the Klingon Empire. 'it was an act of martoknaga'
Actually, I always thought Riker seemed like a later version of Richard Chamberlain in Shogun.