How Would you Change S7 Dukat?

[DevilEyes]

Personally, one of the things I always found jarring about Dukat was how he seemed to love Ziyal to the exclusion of all his other children. He told her "You're all I have, all I care about," right before she died. Which would have been touching ... except he had seven other kids! True, he was estranged from them when he brough Ziyal back to Cardassia in season 4, but I would imagine becoming the new head of the Cardassian government under Dominion rule would've meant they were kissing his ass again, since he was the most powerful man in Cardassia. I think it would have been more poignant, if they said Dukat's family was wiped out by the Klingons or something. All his actions - joining the Dominion, going crazy after Ziyal died - make more sense. And yes, it would also make him more sympathetic, but frankly, I don't think making a villian somewhat sympathetic is really a bad thing. People are complicated; the fact that Dukat had a family and was capable of love and goodness makes his dark side all the more chilling.

I agree with it all, particularly the last bit.

I just want to add something that has just occurred to me while reading a thread on TNG - "Chain of Command" (in many ways a proto-DS9 episode) is a great example of successfully exploring the issue of a the duality of the villain as both a sadistic criminal (torturer, in this case) as well as a loving parent. The scene with Madred's daughter is so chilling as well as so true to life.

"Dad, do Humans have mothers and fathers?"
"Yes, but Human mothers and fathers don't love their children as we do. They are different."

"When children learn to devalue others they can devalue anyone, including their parents."
"What a blind, narrow view you have. What an arrogant man you are!"

 

[flemm]

I just want to add something that has just occurred to me while reading a thread on TNG - "Chain of Command" (in many ways a proto-DS9 episode) is a great example of successfully exploring the issue of a the duality of the villain as both a sadistic criminal (torturer, in this case) as well as a loving parent. The scene with Madred's daughter is so chilling as well as so true to life.

"Dad, do Humans have mothers and fathers?"
"Yes, but Human mothers and fathers don't love their children as we do. They are different."

"When children learn to devalue others they can devalue anyone, including their parents."
"What a blind, narrow view you have. What an arrogant man you are!"

That is a good sequence precisely because both sides are presented simultaneously. If we knew that Madred had spent a lot of time torturing human prisoners, but instead of portraying the stark reality of that side of the character, we had a show about Madred's healthy family life, his true love with one of his human prisoners who truly loved him back, and a bunch of dialogue that suggests that his brutality toward his human prisoners was potentially justified because it made them stronger, then we would have a terrible episode. (That, in a nutshell, is the subtext of Indiscretion.)

We do get to see both sides of Dukat eventually on DS9, but only because an episode like Indiscretion is eventually deconstructed in episodes like Waltz and Wrongs.

Portraying a character as being capable of both tender emotions and great brutality is good because it is perceptive about how these types of contradictions can actually exist within a single individual or society. Portraying a character's tender emotions as admirable, and his brutality as excusable or justifiable is not good because this point of view buys into the mythology that allows the brutality to co-exist with the humane tendencies in the first place.

 

[exodus]

Personally, one of the things I always found jarring about Dukat was how he seemed to love Ziyal to the exclusion of all his other children. He told her "You're all I have, all I care about," right before she died. Which would have been touching ... except he had seven other kids! True, he was estranged from them when he brough Ziyal back to Cardassia in season 4, but I would imagine becoming the new head of the Cardassian government under Dominion rule would've meant they were kissing his ass again, since he was the most powerful man in Cardassia. I think it would have been more poignant, if they said Dukat's family was wiped out by the Klingons or something. All his actions - joining the Dominion, going crazy after Ziyal died - make more sense. And yes, it would also make him more sympathetic, but frankly, I don't think making a villian somewhat sympathetic is really a bad thing. People are complicated; the fact that Dukat had a family and was capable of love and goodness makes his dark side all the more chilling.

In a nutshell, he was a sociopath.

I always had an underlying feeling that since Dukat bedded Kira's mom and lusted after Kira as well, that Kiyal might be Kira's half sister. That's why I figure the bond with her was stronger. He had a strong desire to keep that family under his thumb and cursed Ziyal when she was defiant toward him because it was very Kira like. I saw it all as part of his sociopathic narcissism. He couldn't except people not liking him. I think that's also why he embraced the Pah-Wraiths. He found "God's" that wanted him. How could that not fuel his ego? God's wanted him!

 

[DevilEyes]

Personally, one of the things I always found jarring about Dukat was how he seemed to love Ziyal to the exclusion of all his other children. He told her "You're all I have, all I care about," right before she died. Which would have been touching ... except he had seven other kids! True, he was estranged from them when he brough Ziyal back to Cardassia in season 4, but I would imagine becoming the new head of the Cardassian government under Dominion rule would've meant they were kissing his ass again, since he was the most powerful man in Cardassia. I think it would have been more poignant, if they said Dukat's family was wiped out by the Klingons or something. All his actions - joining the Dominion, going crazy after Ziyal died - make more sense. And yes, it would also make him more sympathetic, but frankly, I don't think making a villian somewhat sympathetic is really a bad thing. People are complicated; the fact that Dukat had a family and was capable of love and goodness makes his dark side all the more chilling.

In a nutshell, he was a sociopath.

I don't see evidence of him having antisocial personality disorder. Narcissistic personality disorder, now that I can see. But antisocial... hm... no.
Some of the traits are supposed to be "consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations" - no. "Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest" - no, in fact, most of Dukat's behavior is acceptable within the norms of Cardassian society (you can't use Human norms there), therefore he is not a sociopath.

I always had an underlying feeling that since Dukat bedded Kira's mom and lusted after Kira as well, that Kiyal might be Kira's half sister. That's why I figure the bond with her was stronger. He had a strong desire to keep that family under his thumb and cursed Ziyal when she was defiant toward him because it was very Kira like.

First off, they are clearly not half-sisters, because Naprem and Meru are two different women and there is no reason to think otherwise. Second, the whole Dukat/Kira's mom thing was a late season 6 retcon (they were planning for to Kira have had an affair with Dukat, and when Visitor insisted that Kira would never do that, they eventually replaced it with a story about Dukat and Kira's mother: "All right, you didn't have an affair with Dukat... but your mother did!") And I'm not particularly fond of massive retconing of characters' motivations all back to the early and middle seasons... Those characterizations were supposed to work back in seasons 4 and 5, too! It is very weird to say: "OK, whatever you thought were Dukat's motives back then, you were wrong, because we've just discovered other motives!"

I just want to add something that has just occurred to me while reading a thread on TNG - "Chain of Command" (in many ways a proto-DS9 episode) is a great example of successfully exploring the issue of a the duality of the villain as both a sadistic criminal (torturer, in this case) as well as a loving parent. The scene with Madred's daughter is so chilling as well as so true to life.

"Dad, do Humans have mothers and fathers?"
"Yes, but Human mothers and fathers don't love their children as we do. They are different."

"When children learn to devalue others they can devalue anyone, including their parents."
"What a blind, narrow view you have. What an arrogant man you are!"

That is a good sequence precisely because both sides are presented simultaneously. If we knew that Madred had spent a lot of time torturing human prisoners, but instead of portraying the stark reality of that side of the character, we had a show about Madred's healthy family life, his true love with one of his human prisoners who truly loved him back, and a bunch of dialogue that suggests that his brutality toward his human prisoners was potentially justified because it made them stronger, then we would have a terrible episode. (That, in a nutshell, is the subtext of Indiscretion.)

I can see how the episode can be seen to be suggesting this, but I must disagree about "a bunch of dialogue that suggests that his brutality was justified because it made them stronger". I only remember one line, spoken by Dukat - early in the episode when he "compliments" Kira as an example of the new Bajor, "A Bajoran tempered with Cardassian steel!" It never occurred to me that we were supposed to agree with him or that this can be seen as an apology for the Occupation. I've always thought that was the most memorable and best line of the whole episode, because it is so bizarre and yet so in character for Dukat - it gives you a good idea how his mind works. He obviously doesn't feel guilty for the Occupation and doesn't think that there was anything really wrong with it; and he even seem to have convinced himself that the Occupation was good for Bajor. He despised the Bajorans for being a peaceful people, which to him equals weak, but he really does have some perverse admiration for the Bajoran Resistance and Kira as its representative, because they have proved themselves as tenacious, effective and ruthless fighters. (Which fits with his character as seen in "The Maquis" and some of the views he expressed there.) Basically it boils down to: "It was only natural for us to occupy your planet, because you were such wusses, and we were strong and superior. So OK, a lot of your people died, but it doesn't matter, because you all got out of it stronger and now you're not wusses anymore, you've proved you can kill lots of people, too. You've become more like us. Kudos to you!"

This will get a follow-up in "Return to Grace", where Dukat seems to genuinely appreciate Kira's abilities as a terrorist, and seems to treat her as a fellow soldier. Of course, Kira doesn't see things that way, and I can only imagine how deeply disturbing it must be for Kira to get such "compliments" from someone like Gul Dukat. Especially since her life as a terrorist is not something that Kira is fond of, it's something that she had to do, but that, as she said, "eats away at your soul".

You're right, however, that "Indiscretion" raises some issue that it can't explore very deeply, and ends up giving a very one-sided and warped view of the Occupation, as it focuses on Dukat's POV. Which is why it was not a great episode, but I wouldn't say it was terrible, either, as there is nothing in it that ruins the overall story or contradicts the information and characterizations previous and later episodes; it just raises some issues that need (and will get) further exploration. Which is why it may be a bad episode if you look at it as a self-contained story, and works much better when regarded as just one chapter in an ongoing story arc. It probably also makes a lot of difference if you're watching all those episodes at a quick rate, or if you were watching it as a part of show's original run: at that point, it had been 2 years since show had dealt with the Occupation in any substantial way , and people's memories are short. The show should have reminded the audience about it while it was focusing on Dukat, but occupation of Bajor was low on the list of storyline priorities in season 4. It was a transitional season; the show seemed to have left the occupation and Bajoran politics behind for a while, to concern itself with the the Klingons (though ultimately it didn't do as much with the war as it could have), with the Dominion, nature of the Jem'Hadar and the fear if the Founder infiltrators, and with romance and holodeck etc. It's a very consistent season, but not nearly as intense as season 5, because it didn't seem really focused on anything, and it seemed like the show had lost some of its edge.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Personally, one of the things I always found jarring about Dukat was how he seemed to love Ziyal to the exclusion of all his other children. He told her "You're all I have, all I care about," right before she died. Which would have been touching ... except he had seven other kids! True, he was estranged from them when he brough Ziyal back to Cardassia in season 4, but I would imagine becoming the new head of the Cardassian government under Dominion rule would've meant they were kissing his ass again, since he was the most powerful man in Cardassia. I think it would have been more poignant, if they said Dukat's family was wiped out by the Klingons or something. All his actions - joining the Dominion, going crazy after Ziyal died - make more sense. And yes, it would also make him more sympathetic, but frankly, I don't think making a villian somewhat sympathetic is really a bad thing. People are complicated; the fact that Dukat had a family and was capable of love and goodness makes his dark side all the more chilling.

I've always believed that Dukat's obsession with Ziyal had two sources.

First--in a twist on the description from 1984, I have always believed that Dukat wanted to see his face stamped upon Bajor forever. Ziyal was the literal embodiment of HIS BAJOR: one that looked up to him and loved him as their "father."

Second--and this one is a little more conjecture but I think there's grounds to suggest it, still...I believe that there was something about Ziyal's temperament that reminded him of what HE himself could have been. I think he saw in her a part of himself (conscience, kindness, anything selfless) that was dying. She was his last connection to anything good in himself. I actually think there's a reasonable chance an AU Dukat would have had a temperament more like hers. But I think that when you get down to it, he was downright TERRIFIED of that part of himself. All of his self-absorption, I think, was a shield to keep this other part of him from ever getting out, from ever being in a position where he could be vulnerable and hurt. And at the same time he lost out on love, on real joy, and on caring about others in a truly selfless sense.

When she died, he lost that very last connection to that part of himself. Something in him...those last vestiges of anything good...died that day. And it's no wonder after that, that he snapped.

Portraying a character as being capable of both tender emotions and great brutality is good because it is perceptive about how these types of contradictions can actually exist within a single individual or society. Portraying a character's tender emotions as admirable, and his brutality as excusable or justifiable is not good because this point of view buys into the mythology that allows the brutality to co-exist with the humane tendencies in the first place.

Exactly. And this is why I have very, VERY serious problems with anyone who takes those good traits left in Dukat to suggest that he's anything less than a real monster, and ESPECIALLY when people justify his actions in any way. And while shows like nuBsG have their place (where there is NO such thing as good and evil), so too do the reminders of more traditional archetypes...archetypes that to my mind, exist because they are based on reality, NOT simply for the sake of being deconstructed.

I always had an underlying feeling that since Dukat bedded Kira's mom and lusted after Kira as well, that Kiyal might be Kira's half sister. That's why I figure the bond with her was stronger. He had a strong desire to keep that family under his thumb and cursed Ziyal when she was defiant toward him because it was very Kira like.

Absolutely not. Kira Meru and Tora Naprem are two different women.

I saw it all as part of his sociopathic narcissism. He couldn't except people not liking him. I think that's also why he embraced the Pah-Wraiths. He found "God's" that wanted him. How could that not fuel his ego? God's wanted him!

This, however, I am in complete agreement with. Dukat was indeed narcissistic and couldn't stand the idea of anyone not liking him. (And in another universe, where he was a good guy...I actually think we'd have a somewhat self-conscious man in the sense of not wanting to step on people's toes too much.)

As for the Pah-Wraiths, I personally think it was arrogance that first led him to them. He thought he could control them, but instead it ended up being the other way around. I think he partly got intoxicated on their power and adulation--but I also think they messed with his head so that even once they'd left him physically the first time, he was not really capable of choosing anymore, to do anything different. He sold his soul, in essence, and could no longer get it back. (The first breaking point, of course, was when Ziyal died, and I think that what came after that was pretty much inevitable, but that was the moment when it became absolutely FINAL.)

 

[flemm]

I can see how the episode can be seen to be suggesting this, but I must disagree about "a bunch of dialogue that suggests that his brutality was justified because it made them stronger". I only remember one line, spoken by Dukat - early in the episode when he "compliments" Kira as an example of the new Bajor, "A Bajoran tempered with Cardassian steel!" ... .

There is a bit more than you are remembering off the top of your head, but it remains a subtext, by which I mean that, no, the writers are not actually setting out to demonstrate that they support the racist ideology of the occupation (which would obviously be contemptible, especially given the parallels the show had drawn with real world scenarios in earlier seasons).

What they were trying to do was brush aside the question of Dukat's involvement in the occupation because they didn't want to think about it, and didn't want to deal with it. So they ended up with the simple-minded idea that permeates the episode, and which amounts to something like the following: well, sure he was involved in that bad business a few years back, but he can sit on a spike and that is funny, and he truly loved one of those Bajorans, so that's all that needs to be said, so now we can consider the character exonerated and move on. In a word: no.

It's fiction, so of course anything can theoretically happen, plausible or implausible, but if you are dealing with a character with Dukat's past and Dukat's attitudes, you are going to need to delve deeper into the ideology he represents, and the psychology that motivates him, to the extent that you want your work to have any credibility at all.

DS9 does this eventually, but those comments by Moore and Behr are inspired by actual shortcomings of the writing for Dukat during the middle seasons. It's not that Dukat's portrayal was too ambiguous during this period, it's that it was too shallow and naive.

When Moore, for example, says something like, "Dukat is a bad guy. A very bad guy. He has a lot of blood on his hands and it's hard to see how his smile and innate charm can wipe that clean," there is a second idea that is left unsaid, but which we can infer. Something like: There were moments on the show when we basically wrote for this character as if we thought his smile and innate charm could wipe his hands clean, but on second thought that was a mistake, because it just isn't that easy.

 

[exodus]

I don't see evidence of him having antisocial personality disorder. Narcissistic personality disorder, now that I can see. But antisocial... hm... no.
Some of the traits are supposed to be "consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations" - no. "Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest" - no, in fact, most of Dukat's behavior is acceptable within the norms of Cardassian society (you can't use Human norms there), therefore he is not a sociopath.

Yeah, I guess that whole idea of him being a xenophophic Nazi that believed he treated everyone kindly and fairly while subjecting them I guess doesn't factor in.

Everything in Trek and how we view other species & situations it is all viewed through human norms.

 

[DevilEyes]

I don't see evidence of him having antisocial personality disorder. Narcissistic personality disorder, now that I can see. But antisocial... hm... no.
Some of the traits are supposed to be "consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations" - no. "Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest" - no, in fact, most of Dukat's behavior is acceptable within the norms of Cardassian society (you can't use Human norms there), therefore he is not a sociopath.

Yeah, I guess that whole idea of him being a xenophophic Nazi that believed he treated everyone kindly and fairly while subjecting them I guess doesn't factor in.

To the issue whether he is a sociopath? No, it doesn't. You seem to be confusing ethical and psychiatric terms. What does factor in is whether he fits the profile of a person suffering from a condition called "antisocial personality disorder". He may seem to have few of the symptoms (lack of empathy and remorse, a grandiose sense of self...), but doesn't fit some others - like lack of behavior controls, history of childhood conduct disorder (none that we know of), disregard for safety, recurring difficulties with the law, etc. Before his breakdown in SOA, Dukat was a functioning and successful individual who conformed to the Cardassian laws and social rules (ironically, except in the case of bringing Ziyal to Cardassia, but even that was not against the law, just societal rules, and for motives that are hardly indicative of sociopathy). Things like racism towards Bajorans, sense of racial superiority, or lack of regard towards the victims, was not a sign of any anti-social tendencies, since it was very much per the course in the Cardassian society. Dukat wasn't antisocial, he was in some ways a typical product of the Cardassian society as seen in Trek.

If you want to say that someone is xenophobic (which is BTW again not really accurate of Dukat, the word you're looking for is racist), then say it like that. If you think that someone is an equivalent of a nazi, say it like that. If you want to say that someone is evil or a bad person, say it like that. "Sociopath" is not a fancy word to replace words like "evil" or "bad person", it has a very specific meaning.

What you're doing is like saying "this guy is an awful person and treats people like crap, therefore he is a schizophrenic." Uh, no.

Now, narcissistic personality disorder... you could make a good case for that one.

And while shows like nuBsG have their place (where there is NO such thing as good and evil), so too do the reminders of more traditional archetypes...archetypes that to my mind, exist because they are based on reality, NOT simply for the sake of being deconstructed.

I can't agree with that. BSG wasn't nearly as morally ambiguous as some people make it out to be. For all the shades of gray, in the end you knew who the heroes and the villains were meant to be, and there were a few characters who had few sympathetic qualities and whose function on the show was obviously that to be villains and represent evil. Cavil/John/One was one such character, and he was made into a super-villain by season 4; The Five (Doral) models were increasingly turned into one-dimensional villains; the writers seemed to have been trying to do something similar with Tory. And then of course there were minor characters like Thorne and the "Sunshine Boys", who were meant to represent the worst of humanity, and you really couldn't help hating their guts.

 

[exodus]

I don't see evidence of him having antisocial personality disorder. Narcissistic personality disorder, now that I can see. But antisocial... hm... no.
Some of the traits are supposed to be "consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations" - no. "Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest" - no, in fact, most of Dukat's behavior is acceptable within the norms of Cardassian society (you can't use Human norms there), therefore he is not a sociopath.

Yeah, I guess that whole idea of him being a xenophophic Nazi that believed he treated everyone kindly and fairly while subjecting them I guess doesn't factor in.

To the issue whether he is a sociopath? No, it doesn't. You seem to be confusing ethical and psychiatric terms. What does factor in is whether he fits the profile of a person suffering from a condition called "antisocial personality disorder". He may seem to have few of the symptoms (lack of empathy and remorse, a grandiose sense of self...), but doesn't fit some others - like lack of behavior controls, history of childhood conduct disorder (none that we know of), disregard for safety, recurring difficulties with the law, etc. Dukat was a functioning and successful individual who conformed to the Cardassian laws and social rules (ironically, except in the case of bringing Ziyal to Cardassia, but even that was not against the law, just societal rules, and for motives that are hardly indicative of sociopathy). Things like racism towards Bajorans, sense of racial superiority, or lack of regard towards the victims, was not a sign of any anti-social tendencies, since it was very much per the course in the Cardassian society. Dukat wasn't antisocial, he was in some ways a typical product of the Cardassian society as seen in Trek.

If you want to say that someone is xenophobic (which is BTW again not really accurate of Dukat, the word you're looking for is racist), then say it like that. If you think that someone is an equivalent of a nazi, say it like that. If you want to say that someone is evil or a bad person, say it like that. "Sociopath" is not a fancy word to replace words like "evil" or "bad person", it has a very specific meaning.

What you're doing is like saying "this guy is an awful person and treats people like crap, therefore he is a schizophrenic." Uh, no.

If I believe Dukat is sociopathic & xenophobic, I'll say it.

Oh wait, I did.

Besides, I believe TNG mentioned Cardassia was a xenophobic society in general.
So if Dukat is a representation of that society....
Most of what you discribe above, I see elements of Dukat having.
So IMO, he fits the profile.
Outside of Cardassian society, Dukat is anti-social.

 

[DevilEyes]

Sorry, but do you actually know what a sociopath is? I'm just curious.

I'm not sure that Cardassian society can be characterized as xenophobic. I don't really see that there is a lot of fear in their society of foreign nationals, and of losing their identity to foreign cultural influence. Dukat certainly doesn't seem to suffer from that kind of fear... Now "Terra Prime", they were xenophobic. Romulans are supposed to be xenophobic.

Cardassian society seems is racist, and their state had an expansionist and colonialist policy based on a sense of superiority.

 

[exodus]

Sorry, but do you actually know what a sociopath is? I'm just curious.

Yep.
As well as agreeing to disagree.

 

[DS9 Gal AZ]

Putting in my 2 cents and not trying to diss anyone's opinion, but I don't think Dukat is a sociopath nor a xenophobe. What he is, is a megalomaniac and a racist. Re: how Dukat feels about the Bajorans... has anyone ever read the poem "White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling? That basically sums up the way he felt, at least initially, towards them. The poem is pretty awful (in its message) that basically white people are surperior and are "burdened" by caring for "angry, sullen peoples/half-devil and half-child," (and I'm pretty sure Kipling wasn't being sarcastic).

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

And while shows like nuBsG have their place (where there is NO such thing as good and evil), so too do the reminders of more traditional archetypes...archetypes that to my mind, exist because they are based on reality, NOT simply for the sake of being deconstructed.

I can't agree with that. BSG wasn't nearly as morally ambiguous as some people make it out to be. For all the shades of gray, in the end you knew who the heroes and the villains were meant to be, and there were a few characters who had few sympathetic qualities and whose function on the show was obviously that to be villains and represent evil. Cavil/John/One was one such character, and he was made into a super-villain by season 4; The Five (Doral) models were increasingly turned into one-dimensional villains; the writers seemed to have been trying to do something similar with Tory. And then of course there were minor characters like Thorne and the "Sunshine Boys", who were meant to represent the worst of humanity, and you really couldn't help hating their guts.

You pretty much had Bad and EEEEVIL, though (to borrow your phrase). Either a character was just horrifyingly evil, or they were like Dukat: had some possibility for good, but did a LOT of evil things, which can be argued in some cases to overshadow the good.

(I actually think that Gaius Baltar may be Moore's revenge for Red-Eye Dukat...the psychologies are so similar it's startling. Now, I didn't mind Red-Eye, but I do think Moore was using Baltar to do the things he didn't do on DS9.)

 

[exodus]

Putting in my 2 cents and not trying to diss anyone's opinion, but I don't think Dukat is a sociopath nor a xenophobe. What he is, is a megalomaniac and a racist. Re: how Dukat feels about the Bajorans... has anyone ever read the poem "White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling? That basically sums up the way he felt, at least initially, towards them. The poem is pretty awful (in its message) that basically white people are surperior and are "burdened" by caring for "angry, sullen peoples/half-devil and half-child," (and I'm pretty sure Kipling wasn't being sarcastic).

Bajorians are not another race to the Cardassians, they're another species.
They are alien to each other. They are from different planetary systems.
Dukat is not racist, Bajorians are not of the same races as Cardassians.
Dukat is xenophobic.

 

[DevilEyes]

And while shows like nuBsG have their place (where there is NO such thing as good and evil), so too do the reminders of more traditional archetypes...archetypes that to my mind, exist because they are based on reality, NOT simply for the sake of being deconstructed.

I can't agree with that. BSG wasn't nearly as morally ambiguous as some people make it out to be. For all the shades of gray, in the end you knew who the heroes and the villains were meant to be, and there were a few characters who had few sympathetic qualities and whose function on the show was obviously that to be villains and represent evil. Cavil/John/One was one such character, and he was made into a super-villain by season 4; The Five (Doral) models were increasingly turned into one-dimensional villains; the writers seemed to have been trying to do something similar with Tory. And then of course there were minor characters like Thorne and the "Sunshine Boys", who were meant to represent the worst of humanity, and you really couldn't help hating their guts.

You pretty much had Bad and EEEEVIL, though (to borrow your phrase). Either a character was just horrifyingly evil, or they were like Dukat: had some possibility for good, but did a LOT of evil things, which can be argued in some cases to overshadow the good.

Helo was pretty much always portrayed as the white knight of BSG, and some other characters, like Chief Tyrol, were predominantly good. All characters could be graded by the amount of 'good' and 'evil', but the judgment would depend from person to person. I still remember the heated debates on BSG forums over characters like Roslin, Tigh, Baltar, Caprica Six, Athena, Boomer, or even Starbuck. Roslin is an interesting example as she starts off as unambiguously as a heroine, and while she always remains a person who is completely and sincerely dedicated to the goal of protecting the Human race, she becomes more and more ruthless, cold and machiavellian - and some of the actions really made me hate her at the time (he was a 'love or hate' character for fans, some people even considered her to be the real villain). But that was the point of the character's story arc, and the show eventually dealt with these issues in the last season. Overall I find her to be a great character, even though I often found her hard to like.

(I actually think that Gaius Baltar may be Moore's revenge for Red-Eye Dukat...the psychologies are so similar it's startling. Now, I didn't mind Red-Eye, but I do think Moore was using Baltar to do the things he didn't do on DS9.)

I've seen people make that comparison before, but really, while there are some similarities (like narcissism, megalomania, and charm that makes the characters more likable than they should be), there are polar opposites in a lot of ways. They would probably both feel insulted by the comparison with the other, and with good reasons. Dukat would probably despise Baltar and resent being in any way compared to a cowardly, passive weakling who was repeatedly manipulated or intimidated by others and never able to form a plan of action or do anything without being prompted by someone else or forced by the most immediate circumstances. Baltar, on his part, should resent being compared to a cruel, militaristic and racist person (in contrast to Baltar, who is basically peaceful and doesn't seem to feel any prejudice for people based on their species/race) who willingly, knowingly and actively committed mass murders and numerous other crimes, and who sexually enslaved, manipulated and abused many women (something that you could never accuse Baltar of, for all his sexual escapades). I always saw Baltar as an antihero/antagonist, nor a proper villain; at the beginning, the Cylons were the villains, the ones who committed the genocide, and Baltar was just a hapless pawn who had no idea what he was getting himself into. I saw him as embodiment of human weaknesses - selfishness, cowardice, lust, desperate desire to survive at all costs, lack of backbone and ethics - which made him alternately, or simultaneously, despicable and sympathetic, but I don't think he could ever be a real villain, since he almost never took an actively villainous role; the worst things he would do were horrible blunders and spur of the moment acts committed out of panic. All this puts Baltar firmly in the "bad man" category, but I could never see him as "evil", due to his lack of malice or cruelty. A real villain has to be a more active, more formidable figure, someone pulling the strings, or taking charge. (The Cylons seemed to be that in the beginning; when they were watered down with time, the writers finally made Cavil into this kind of villainous figure.) Which is why redeeming Baltar was always much easier than redeeming Dukat; Baltar never knowingly committed genocide and only reluctantly ordered executions when he literally had a gun pointed at his head.

Putting in my 2 cents and not trying to diss anyone's opinion, but I don't think Dukat is a sociopath nor a xenophobe. What he is, is a megalomaniac and a racist. Re: how Dukat feels about the Bajorans... has anyone ever read the poem "White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling? That basically sums up the way he felt, at least initially, towards them. The poem is pretty awful (in its message) that basically white people are surperior and are "burdened" by caring for "angry, sullen peoples/half-devil and half-child," (and I'm pretty sure Kipling wasn't being sarcastic).

Bajorians are not another race to the Cardassians, they're another species.
They are alien to each other. They are from different planetary systems.
Dukat is not racist, Bajorians are not of the same races as Cardassians.
Dukat is xenophobic.

If we're going to talk about the definition of 'race' - by your logic, humans who hate other humans because of the color of their skin etc. are not racist - because there are no such things as human 'races', it's a relict of an outdated science, and nowadays it's largely a cultural construct. Humans are like cats, they come in different colors, but biologically it doesn't make sense to categorize them into 'races'.

But how are you going to call, say, an American who hates another American because he's black? It's not xenophobia, since they are both of the same nationality. If he hates a French national and believes that foreigners should all go home, that would be xenophobia.

Racism in the context of Trek is synonymous with "specism", especially since Trek aliens are really metaphors for humans. Besides, I'd question the statement that Cardassians and Bajorans can really be considered different species, since they only seem to have superficial biological differences, and they are able to reproduce together without medical assistance. The same goes for many other Trek humanoid species. That is why I prefer to call them "races" of humanoids. The only cases where you could really argue for "specism", IMO, is when there are really significant biological differences - as between the humanoids and the Founders.

Dukat is not xenophobic, because if he was, he never would have brought the Dominion to Cardassia. The Founders, the Vorta and the Jem'Hadar are definitely very foreign and alien to the Cardassians. A xenophobe also would hate to 'mix' with foreign elements, like Bajorans or Humans in this case.

Xenophobes have an irrational fear and mistrust of foreigners (not people of a different genetic background, but foreign nationals) as well as of elements of foreign cultures, and believe that the foreigners should stay away from their country. They don't necessarily think that their country and its citizens are superior to the others; they just don't want to mix with the foreigners, and they don't want foreigners to come to their country. Cultural xenophobes are resentful of foreign languages, literature, music, film, pop culture, food, etc. "invading" their country's cultural space. Xenophobia can lead to isolationism, expulsion or mistreatment of immigrants, or ethnic cleansing and genocide. But it does not lead to invading other countries or subjugating their population, to imperialism and colonialism. This would be more likely connected to and justified through nationalism/chauvinism and racism.

People who believe that their national group is superior to others are called chauvinists (the original and primary meaning of that word). Racism is the same thing but related not to the nationality, but the genetic factors and origin. Since the old belief that people can be divided into 'races' is mostly abandoned, nowadays it refers to any case of prejudice against someone based on their ethnicity. UN conventions make no distinction between 'racial' and 'ethnic' discrimination.

Dukat's views are indeed amazingly similar to the concept of "White Man's Burden", derived from the above mentioned infamous poem by Kipling. Now, Kipling's poem and that entire concept was definitely not xenophobic. It was racist and imperialistic.

 

[exodus]

I can't agree with that. BSG wasn't nearly as morally ambiguous as some people make it out to be. For all the shades of gray, in the end you knew who the heroes and the villains were meant to be, and there were a few characters who had few sympathetic qualities and whose function on the show was obviously that to be villains and represent evil. Cavil/John/One was one such character, and he was made into a super-villain by season 4; The Five (Doral) models were increasingly turned into one-dimensional villains; the writers seemed to have been trying to do something similar with Tory. And then of course there were minor characters like Thorne and the "Sunshine Boys", who were meant to represent the worst of humanity, and you really couldn't help hating their guts.

You pretty much had Bad and EEEEVIL, though (to borrow your phrase). Either a character was just horrifyingly evil, or they were like Dukat: had some possibility for good, but did a LOT of evil things, which can be argued in some cases to overshadow the good.

Helo was pretty much always portrayed as the white knight of BSG, and some other characters, like Chief Tyrol, were predominantly good. All characters could be graded by the amount of 'good' and 'evil', but the judgment would depend from person to person. I still remember the heated debates on BSG forums over characters like Roslin, Tigh, Baltar, Caprica Six, Athena, Boomer, or even Starbuck. Roslin is an interesting example as she starts off as unambiguously as a heroine, and while she always remains a person who is completely and sincerely dedicated to the goal of protecting the Human race, she becomes more and more ruthless, cold and machiavellian - and some of the actions really made me hate her at the time (he was a 'love or hate' character for fans, some people even considered her to be the real villain). But that was the point of the character's story arc, and the show eventually dealt with these issues in the last season. Overall I find her to be a great character, even though I often found her hard to like.

I've seen people make that comparison before, but really, while there are some similarities (like narcissism, megalomania, and charm that makes the characters more likable than they should be), there are polar opposites in a lot of ways. They would probably both feel insulted by the comparison with the other, and with good reasons. Dukat would probably despise Baltar and resent being in any way compared to a cowardly, passive weakling who was repeatedly manipulated or intimidated by others and never able to form a plan of action or do anything without being prompted by someone else or forced by the most immediate circumstances. Baltar, on his part, should resent being compared to a cruel, militaristic and racist person (in contrast to Baltar, who is basically peaceful and doesn't seem to feel any prejudice for people based on their species/race) who willingly, knowingly and actively committed mass murders and numerous other crimes, and who sexually enslaved, manipulated and abused many women (something that you could never accuse Baltar of, for all his sexual escapades). I always saw Baltar as an antihero/antagonist, nor a proper villain; at the beginning, the Cylons were the villains, the ones who committed the genocide, and Baltar was just a hapless pawn who had no idea what he was getting himself into. I saw him as embodiment of human weaknesses - selfishness, cowardice, lust, desperate desire to survive at all costs, lack of backbone and ethics - which made him alternately, or simultaneously, despicable and sympathetic, but I don't think he could ever be a real villain, since he almost never took an actively villainous role; the worst things he would do were horrible blunders and spur of the moment acts committed out of panic. All this puts Baltar firmly in the "bad man" category, but I could never see him as "evil", due to his lack of malice or cruelty. A real villain has to be a more active, more formidable figure, someone pulling the strings, or taking charge. (The Cylons seemed to be that in the beginning; when they were watered down with time, the writers finally made Cavil into this kind of villainous figure.) Which is why redeeming Baltar was always much easier than redeeming Dukat; Baltar never knowingly committed genocide and only reluctantly ordered executions when he literally had a gun pointed at his head.

Putting in my 2 cents and not trying to diss anyone's opinion, but I don't think Dukat is a sociopath nor a xenophobe. What he is, is a megalomaniac and a racist. Re: how Dukat feels about the Bajorans... has anyone ever read the poem "White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling? That basically sums up the way he felt, at least initially, towards them. The poem is pretty awful (in its message) that basically white people are surperior and are "burdened" by caring for "angry, sullen peoples/half-devil and half-child," (and I'm pretty sure Kipling wasn't being sarcastic).

Bajorians are not another race to the Cardassians, they're another species.
They are alien to each other. They are from different planetary systems.
Dukat is not racist, Bajorians are not of the same races as Cardassians.
Dukat is xenophobic.

If we're going to talk about the definition of 'race' - by your logic, humans who hate other humans because of the color of their skin etc. are not racist - because there are no such things as human 'races', it's a relict of an outdated science, and nowadays it's largely a cultural construct. Humans are like cats, they come in different colors, but biologically it doesn't make sense to categorize them into 'races'.

But how are you going to call, say, an American who hates another American because he's black? It's not xenophobia, since they are both of the same nationality. If he hates a French national and believes that foreigners should all go home, that would be xenophobia.

Racism in the context of Trek is synonymous with "specism", especially since Trek aliens are really metaphors for humans. Besides, I'd question the statement that Cardassians and Bajorans can really be considered different species, since they only seem to have superficial biological differences, and they are able to reproduce together without medical assistance. The same goes for many other Trek humanoid species. That is why I prefer to call them "races" of humanoids. The only cases where you could really argue for "specism", IMO, is when there are really significant biological differences - as between the humanoids and the Founders.

Dukat is not xenophobic, because if he was, he never would have brought the Dominion to Cardassia. The Founders, the Vorta and the Jem'Hadar are definitely very foreign and alien to the Cardassians. A xenophobe also would hate to 'mix' with foreign elements, like Bajorans or Humans in this case.

Xenophobes have an irrational fear and mistrust of foreigners (not people of a different genetic background, but foreign nationals) as well as of elements of foreign cultures, and believe that the foreigners should stay away from their country. They don't necessarily think that their country and its citizens are superior to the others; they just don't want to mix with the foreigners, and they don't want foreigners to come to their country. Cultural xenophobes are resentful of foreign languages, literature, music, film, pop culture, food, etc. "invading" their country's cultural space. Xenophobia can lead to isolationism, expulsion or mistreatment of immigrants, or ethnic cleansing and genocide. But it does not lead to invading other countries or subjugating their population, to imperialism and colonialism. This would be more likely connected to and justified through nationalism/chauvinism and racism.

People who believe that their national group is superior to others are called chauvinists (the original and primary meaning of that word). Racism is the same thing but related not to the nationality, but the genetic factors and origin. Since the old belief that people can be divided into 'races' is mostly abandoned, nowadays it refers to any case of prejudice against someone based on their ethnicity. UN conventions make no distinction between 'racial' and 'ethnic' discrimination.

Dukat's views are indeed amazingly similar to the concept of "White Man's Burden", derived from the above mentioned infamous poem by Kipling. Now, Kipling's poem and that entire concept was definitely not xenophobic. It was racist and imperialistic.

Since when can't you be both?

Dukat can't be xenophobic & chauvinistic?
Hitler proves otherwise.
The Nazi' didn't invade other countries under the idea of ethnic cleansing?
History itself says otherwise.

 

[Gul Re'jal]

Cardassians didn't invade Bajor for ethnic cleansing.

Neither did Hitler. He wanted space. People were in his way, so were to be removed or enslave, but they were not main target (I talk about nationals of invaded countries, not Jews, to make it clear, as many seem to forget Jews weren't the only victims of that war).

Cardassians wanted resources and Bajorans were to work for them. There wasn't any plan to exterminate them all as the main goal.

 

[exodus]

Cardassians didn't invade Bajor for ethnic cleansing.

Neither did Hitler. He wanted space. People were in his way, so were to be removed or enslave, but they were not main target (I talk about nationals of invaded countries, not Jews, to make it clear, as many seem to forget Jews weren't the only victims of that war).

Cardassians wanted resources and Bajorans were to work for them. There wasn't any plan to exterminate them all as the main goal.

I didn't say they did, I said the Nazi' did. However Devil Eyes stated: Xenophobia can lead to isolationism, expulsion or mistreatment of immigrants, or ethnic cleansing and genocide. But it does not lead to invading other countries or subjugating their population, to imperialism and colonialism. This would be more likely connected to and justified through nationalism/chauvinism and racism.


Which is why I asked: Can't they be both?

 

[Gul Re'jal]

Could be in theory, but in case of Dukat it's not the case.

Cardassians weren't xenophobes, eg. they didn't blame Bajorans for lack of resources on their planet. They had complex of superiority, were aggressive, racist, cruel, but not xenophobic. If they were - no alien would be allowed in the Union, but the Cardassians co-operated with other powers, aliens and governments. As said earlier - Dukat invited the Dominion, which automatically proves he was not xenophobic.

 

[exodus]

Could be in theory, but in case of Dukat it's not the case.

Cardassians weren't xenophobes, eg. they didn't blame Bajorans for lack of resources on their planet. They had complex of superiority, were aggressive, racist, cruel, but not xenophobic. If they were - no alien would be allowed in the Union, but the Cardassians co-operated with other powers, aliens and governments. As said earlier - Dukat invited the Dominion, which automatically proves he was not xenophobic.

You don't believe it's possable to make allies with others as a means to an end while deep inside still being xenophobic?

The way I'm viewing it is: Is comparing it to homophobia.
You could work next to someone homosexual and yet still have them for what they are but have too because they had a skill you require. Once that job was done, they'd be gone too. The Dominion had just the Dukat needed for his plans but he was plotting with Damar against them the whole time. Aren't there degrees of the levels of xenophobia?

In the end, wasn't Dukat planning on revolting and exspelling the Dominion from Cardassia once they won the war? Isn't that what he meant when he kept saying; "He wanted to make Cardassia whole again."?